BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No.2) Bill [Lords]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Wednesday 11 September at 4 o’clock (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Wednesday 11 September at 4 o’clock (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Syria

Sarah Newton: What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.

John Glen: What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.

Karl McCartney: What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.

Guy Opperman: What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.

William Hague: The United Nations has announced that there are now 2 million Syrian refugees in the region. The United Kingdom is already the second largest donor, supporting more than 900,000 Syrians, and we will do more. The president of the Syrian National Coalition will visit London on Thursday, when we will discuss further support to save lives, promote political dialogue in Syria, and advance the holding of a second Geneva conference. We support a
	strong international response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, while of course fully respecting the views of the House.

Sarah Newton: I do not believe that the people of Britain want the people of Syria to feel that they have been abandoned in their hour of need. Will my right hon. Friend, who has shown such a lead, continue to work with partners in providing humanitarian aid to help to alleviate the dreadful suffering that we see in Syria, and will he consider including in that humanitarian response protection against any future use of chemical weapons?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom’s total funding for humanitarian purposes in Syria and the region is now £348 million. That is the largest total sum that the UK has ever committed to a single crisis. UK aid is funding food for more than 280,000 people a month, and drinking water for almost a million people.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned protection. The package of chemical weapons protective equipment that I announced to the House just before the summer break has now arrived in the region. It includes 5,000 escape hoods, detector paper, and a stock of nerve agent pre-treatment tablets.

John Glen: Given that enormous commitment to aid, will the Foreign Secretary applaud the efforts of others such as Michael Bates in the other place, who last weekend completed a 518-mile walk from London to Derry in aid of Syria’s children, raising more than £35,000 for the cause? Does not the record of aid and diplomacy achieved by the Government and the people in it suggest that the Government’s willingness to consider military action was expressed reluctantly, and alongside an enormous commitment—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not wish to be discourteous, but we must make progress. Questions must be much pithier.

William Hague: To be brief, I join my hon. Friend in saluting the work of, and the example set by, our noble Friend Lord Bates, as we should refer to him in this House. It is another example of the generosity of the British people—generosity that is being fully called on, for the reasons that I have described. However, we shall have to be prepared to do even more in the months ahead, given the immense scale of the humanitarian crisis.

Karl McCartney: It is truly regrettable that the House last week failed to vote for a motion condemning the use of chemical weapons, and to back an international response to the crisis in Syria. That was an outcome that neither the Government nor the Opposition and their leader should have wanted to see. That same evening saw reports that the Assad regime had firebombed a school. It seems that our inaction will possibly only embolden Assad and his forces. Will my right hon. Friend assure me, and the House, that the Government will continue to utilise diplomatic channels to push for a solution to the crisis?

William Hague: We absolutely will. I have referred to our humanitarian work, but we must also never stop our diplomatic efforts. We have promoted a second conference in Geneva, as have other nations. The Prime Minister discussed that with President Putin last week, and I discussed it with my counterpart Sergei Lavrov. When the Prime Minister attends the G20 summit in St Petersburg at the end of the week, he will have further opportunities for discussion. There is still an overwhelming case for the holding of a peace conference in Geneva, and we will continue to work towards that.

Guy Opperman: What specific steps are being taken to put diplomatic pressure on Russia itself?

William Hague: I mentioned a moment ago the conversations we have with Russian leaders. Whether they feel that as diplomatic pressure, we shall see. Russia has proved immune to what my hon. Friend and I would normally regard as diplomatic pressure when it has come to votes at the UN Security Council. The Russians are committed also to bringing about a Geneva peace conference, so we have to work on that common ground, but not only to bring about a peace conference, but to do it in circumstances where it has a chance of success, and that, of course, has been the most elusive thing so far.

Jack Straw: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the chances of success of any peace conference will be greatly enhanced if Iran is involved, and given the election of Dr Hassan Rouhani as President, will he say what extra efforts he has been making to reach out to the Iranian Government?

William Hague: The chances would be enhanced not necessarily by Iran being involved, but by Iran playing a constructive role in trying to bring about a settlement at such a peace conference. I think nearly all of us who participated in the first Geneva conference last year where Iran was not present came to the view that we could not even have reached the conclusion we did on the need for a transitional Government in Syria had Iran been there. So it depends on the role Iran is prepared to play. I had a conversation a few weeks ago with the outgoing Iranian Foreign Minister. I have offered to meet the new Iranian Foreign Minister during the UN General Assembly in New York, and we will, of course, be able to discuss these issues.

Jeremy Corbyn: All wars have to end with a conference and a peace solution, and in response to the question just raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), will the Foreign Secretary show a greater sense of urgency? If there is to be a peace process, it has got to involve all the neighbouring countries; it has got to involve Saudi Arabia and Iran and Russia. Will he reach out now and meet the Iranian Government to try to get them involved and use the G20 as the springboard to achieve that?

William Hague: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of urgency either on the part of Her Majesty’s Government or many other Governments around the world, and he will know that Secretary Kerry has applied himself very hard in recent months to trying to bring about the Geneva peace conference and,
	along with America’s partners around Europe, trying to work closely with Russia on this. As I was just saying, the test for Iran is whether it is really prepared to play a constructive role, because we must remember that Iran has, from all the evidence presented, been actively supporting the Syrian regime, including in the killing of so many innocent people in Syria. It has not played a constructive role so far, but we are prepared to talk to it.

Joan Ruddock: What the Syrian people need is a ceasefire, not a barrage of cruise missiles. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the media have reported that Senator John McCain has said that President Obama has told him that this will not just be a punishment strike, but it will be a wider military action in order to tip the balance towards the opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself entirely from such sentiments?

William Hague: I do not believe that to be the intention of the United States. President Obama has made his purpose very clear, but in any case he has now referred this to the United States Congress so I think we have to allow, as the US Administration has called for, the US Congress to make its decision. We had our vote last week, and the US Congress will have its vote, but President Obama is very clear that any action proposed by the United States would be to deter the further use of chemical weapons. I think we can take him at his word on that, and I am not going to criticise him for putting that forward.

Douglas Alexander: Let me return to the diplomatic initiatives the Foreign Secretary mentioned. Will he first offer the House an assurance that the British Government will be urging the attendance of Lakhdar Brahimi at the G20 meeting in order to facilitate a discussion that many of us would judge necessary on Syria? Secondly, will he consider the establishment of a Syrian contact group so that not just Iran but Russia and, indeed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could, as principal sponsors of the respective sides of this conflict, be engaged in trying to find a way towards Geneva?

William Hague: To be clear, we expect the discussion on Syria at the G20 to be in a series of bilateral meetings. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the formal agenda of the G20 is set by Russia working with the rest of the G20 and is about a wide range of trading and economic issues. But Syria will dominate the bilateral meetings during the G20, and we would expect it to do so. Of course, we want Mr Brahimi to be involved; we usually facilitate and support his involvement in all critical discussions that take place around the world on these matters, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember the point about the bilateral meetings in St Petersburg, and we continue to work with the core group of the Friends of Syria to promote dialogue in Syria, to try to bring about a peaceful settlement. Ultimately, as other hon. Members have said, there has to be a political solution, and so, of course, we will continue with that work.

Douglas Alexander: I think that the House will be disappointed by an admission from the Foreign Secretary that Lakhdar Brahimi will apparently not be in attendance in St Petersburg and nor will this be on the formal
	agenda of the grouping of the 20 countries. May I urge the Foreign Secretary to consider requesting the Russian Government to place the issue of Syria at the top of the multilateral agenda? Secondly, does he not accept that there is a fundamental difference between Friends of Syria—those only supporting the rebels—and a contact group, which would contain parties to both sides of the conflict?

William Hague: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does understand, from his past experience, how these meetings are conducted; it is in the bilateral meetings that Syria will be a dominant issue in St Petersburg—and should be. The Prime Minister will, of course, be pursuing it at every possibility and through every channel in St Petersburg, as he has done and as I have done in a whole series of bilateral and multilateral meetings in the past few months. Our problem is not being unable to discuss these things in the international community; it is being unable to agree how we bring about a transitional Government in Syria, formed from the Government and the opposition by mutual consent. There is no shortage of venues and platforms for discussing those things—we have had two and a half years of discussion on this; it is agreement that is elusive, not a forum for discussion.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the humanitarian problem extends not only to those who have sought refuge outside Syria, but to the very large number of internally displaced persons, on whose behalf the Red Crescent is working tirelessly to seek to alleviate their suffering? Is he satisfied that proper opportunity is available to all organisations, inside and outside Syria, that have humanitarian objectives in mind?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend asks a very important question. The answer is that I am not satisfied that all the access is there. British aid is, through non-governmental organisations and the international agencies, reaching into many parts of Syria; it is reaching people in all 14 governorates of Syria. So British aid is being widely distributed inside Syria, as well as outside it. But there have often been, and continue to be, severe problems on humanitarian access, which is often not permitted by the regime. It is another testimony to the callousness of this regime towards its own people that not only has it killed so many tens of thousands, but it obstructs the delivery of aid, including medical supplies, to people in its own country who desperately need it.

Angus Robertson: What kind of message does it send to the rest of the world that until recently the UK Ministry of Defence was providing and paying for the training of senior military officers from the Assad regime?

William Hague: I think that the House knows the attitude that we have taken to the Assad regime from the beginning of these problems at the beginning of 2011. Successive Governments made diplomatic approaches to the Assad regime and were right to do so. That happened under the last Labour Government and under the current Government, but once these troubles began and it became clear that Assad was setting about dealing with them
	by trying to suppress and murder so many of his own people, our approach radically changed. That is true of the Ministry of Defence, as well as of all other Departments.

Gibraltar

Jake Berry: What assessment he has made of recent developments relating to Gibraltar.

William Hague: Since 26 July, the Spanish Government have conducted politically motivated checks at the border. The Prime Minister and I have made it clear to the Spanish Government that unlawful actions and threats against Gibraltar are unacceptable. We have repeatedly expressed our desire to find a diplomatic solution to various issues, while reaffirming our commitment to upholding the rights and sovereignty of the UK and of Gibraltar.

Jake Berry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Spanish Government should stop seeking problems abroad to distract from their own internal party funding scandal? Will he urge them to come back to the table to have sensible talks about fishing rights? Will he reassure me, and everyone in Rossendale and Darwen, that he will never give an inch on British sovereignty in Gibraltar, unlike the Labour party when it was in government?

William Hague: My hon. Friend will have spoken for a great many people in the country and in Gibraltar. We are in favour of talks with Spain. Chief Minister Picardo visited London last week and had discussions with me and the Prime Minister and, as the Chief Minister set out in his statement, we confirmed the position we took in April last year to propose ad hoc dialogue with Spain. My hon. Friend is right: Gibraltar is British and wants to stay British, and for us that is the end of the matter. We will never negotiate over sovereignty over the heads of the people of Gibraltar, as the previous Labour Government did.

Gerald Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear to the Spanish Government that Gibraltar is British and will remain British as long as the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British, as demonstrated in an overwhelming vote in a referendum the invigilation of which I led? Will he make it clear to the Spanish Government that harassment at the border and intrusion into British sovereign waters will not be tolerated and that, if need be, there will be reprisals?

William Hague: I absolutely will. I welcome everything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said and I think that that message should resound clearly from both sides of this House—his question means that it does so.

David Davies: Since geographical proximity has become such a priority for the Spanish over national borders, will the Foreign Secretary instead suggest at the next meeting that they turn their attentions to Ceuta and perhaps hand it back to the Moroccans, who have been after it for many years?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If talks take place with Spain in the way that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and I have set out, we will concentrate on the localised issues but, of course, people cannot help making exactly the observation that my hon. Friend has just made.

Emma Reynolds: It is of deep concern to Members on both sides of this House that the border crisis seems to be escalating, with recent reports that a Spanish demonstration would attempt to cross the border into Gibraltar. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that he is working closely with the European Union to ensure that Spain is forced to respect its EU treaty obligations?

William Hague: We are working closely with the European Union. The Prime Minister spoke directly to the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, about the issue. We have asked the Commission to send a fact-finding mission to the border to investigate the delays and we welcome Mr Barroso’s confirmation that such a mission will soon be deployed. It is very good that it will come and look at the facts and we look to it to help us uphold the law.

Middle East Peace Process

David Burrowes: What assessment he has made of the latest prospects for the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: I applaud the extraordinary commitment of Secretary Kerry to bringing about the resumption of formal negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Hard work and difficult choices lie ahead, and both sides will need to show decisive leadership. Britain will do all it can to support efforts to bring about a lasting peace.

David Burrowes: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s response, but given the news this week from Israel’s Shin Bet security agency that it has uncovered a Hamas terror cell planning attacks on Israelis during the upcoming Jewish holiday season, what prospect is there for success in the peace process, particularly when Hamas states that it will never accept the negotiation track and result?

William Hague: There are people—my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to them—who will try to disrupt and sabotage this immense effort to bring about permanent peace between Israelis and Palestinians. On the other hand, President Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, is a genuine partner for peace for Israel and I welcome the bold leadership he has shown. He will visit the UK shortly and we will have detailed discussions with him about the way forward for Palestinians and the need for them to embrace this process, notwithstanding the obstruction of Hamas.

Serbia and Kosovo

Wayne David: What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for fully normalising relations between Serbia and Kosovo.

David Lidington: I very much welcome the considerable progress that Serbia and Kosovo have already made, including their historic agreement on 19 April this year. There is still more to do, but I am confident that if both sides remain committed, full normalisation will be achieved.

Wayne David: I am sure that the Minister for Europe will join me in congratulating both the United Nations and the EU High Representative on their efforts to bring a better relationship between Kosovo and Serbia, but what does he identify as the next crucial step in normalising the relationship between Pristina and Belgrade?

David Lidington: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about congratulating both the United Nations and the EU High Representative on their work to achieve progress. The next steps are the full implementation of what has been agreed under the dialogue and urgent efforts to take forward some of the key outstanding issues, such as telecommunications, energy and agreement on arrangements for municipal elections later this year. Of course, we have to ensure that conditionality on normalisation is hard-wired into the framework for Serbia’s accession negotiations.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Kosovo would not exist if we and other members of the international community had not intervened in the mayhem and disintegration of the former Republic of Yugoslavia? Is there not a choice for this country about whether we want to continue to be a country of influence or one of isolation and whether we want our children to continue to write history or simply to read it?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would simply add that the decision that the then Government took and Parliament supported in respect of Kosovo showed that the UK saw that its national interests were served by stability in south-east Europe and were not confined to the immediate vicinity of our territory.

Keith Vaz: Serbia is a candidate country to join the EU, but Kosovo is only a potential candidate. Is there a way to ensure that the timetables coincide, so that both countries can be treated equally and join the EU at the same time?

David Lidington: We have consistently taken a policy towards EU enlargement that says that there should not be artificial timetables, but that each country’s progress should be determined by its success in meeting specific accession criteria. That is the right approach to take. What is important is that we make it clear that the normalisation of relations with Kosovo is integral to the entire Serbian accession process. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Commission is about to launch negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo. That is a very clear signal of its European perspective, too.

Israel and Palestine

Anne McGuire: What support his Department has provided to projects fostering co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Alistair Burt: We are committed to encouraging peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. Strengthening those who are committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict is a key objective of our £4 million conflict pool, which is available in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and supports such projects with that aim.

Anne McGuire: I thank the Minister for his answer. The conflict pool funds operate in silos. Will he consider refocusing some of those funds to support joint working to encourage co-existence and co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians?

Alistair Burt: I am very keen to do so. I visited a football project between Israelis, Palestinians and Israeli Arabs this year. There is a very good project where Palestinian doctors are trained in Israeli hospitals and return to Palestinian territories, and there is increased co-operation between them. At the moment, we are not getting enough applications from such projects. I am very keen to see more and to see the conflict pool used more to encourage co-existence.

Philip Hollobone: What is the potential impact on revived trade arrangements between the Israelis and the Palestinians on the Gaza border as a result of Egyptian action against the smuggling tunnels controlled by Hamas?

Alistair Burt: Getting a grip on the smuggling is a really important part of the future of Gaza, because its economy cannot deliver more unless this issue is dealt with. Essentially, however, the future economic prospects of Gaza are also closely bound up with a greater relaxation by the Israelis of the restrictions currently placed on Gaza and, of course, an overall settlement in the area, which will boost the Gazan economy and that of the west bank in due course.

Louise Ellman: Organisations such as Givat Haviva and the Abraham Fund show the importance of co-existence. Does the Minister condemn those who campaign against co-existence between Palestinians and Israelis? Indeed, does he recognise that their actions might be one of the reasons for the dearth of applications to the projects that he has mentioned?

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The atmosphere has been so poisoned over the years that two peoples whose individuals have an awful lot in common and whose work together will mean so much when there is a resolution to the issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians have been prevented from doing so. Peer pressure and other pressure that works against such projects is a tragedy. Separation over the years has done a great deal of damage. We must all get behind Secretary Kerry’s efforts because if, as part of that, there can be improved personal prospects and economic prospects for an independent Palestine, it will benefit both the Palestinians and Israel.

Bob Russell: As the Foreign Secretary was silent about the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouin Arabs and the illegal building of yet more settlements on the occupied west bank, will the Minister confirm that those actions do nothing to foster co-existence between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Alistair Burt: We are never silent in relation to issues affecting the growth of settlements. We make statements about that and the Israelis are well aware of our situation. With respect to the internal situation affecting the Bedouin, I have been in contact over a period of time with Ministers responsible. It is a difficult internal issue in Israel and much attention is being paid to it on both the Bedouin side and the Israeli side.

Ian Lucas: At a time of such darkness in the middle east, will the Minister join me in commending the work carried out by the West-Eastern Divan orchestra led by Daniel Barenboim, which creates a space for dialogue through music, in the words of Mr Barenboim? Will the Minister continue to support such projects to foster co-existence at a very difficult time?

Alistair Burt: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is a ray of light that, despite all the difficulties, people’s interest in coming together and realising what they have in common can sometimes overcome the most difficult things. History is full of situations where those who have been the bitterest enemies have, over time, developed into friends. It will take time in relation to some in Israel and in what we hope will be a new Palestinian state, but the efforts of those who have made opportunities for co-existence in the years of difficulty will be seen as even more important in the years to come.

Jordan and Lebanon

Nicola Blackwood: What recent assessment he has made of the security and political situation in Jordan and Lebanon.

Alistair Burt: Lebanon maintains a fragile political peace, under much pressure at present from increased violence. Jordan is continuing with political and economic reforms, but both states are under increased pressure because of the conflict in Syria and the impact upon their economies and their security issues.

Nicola Blackwood: In April I met Syrian refugees in Lebanon and heard at first hand about the atrocities they had fled. Lebanese officials told me about how they were struggling to maintain stability in the face of the sheer numbers of refugees coming in, yet with the numbers doubling in the past six months, the UN appeal is only 41% funded. Will the Minister give his assessment of the impact of this crisis on Lebanese stability?

Alistair Burt: The situation in Lebanon now, as the House will probably be aware, is that practically 25% of the population of Lebanon is now made up of Syrian refugees. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his remarks earlier, this crisis is of massive
	proportions, and the news today that the number of refugees has reached 2 million and that by the end of the year we may see 10 million displaced within Syria and beyond emphasises how important it is. We have given support to Lebanon to strengthen borders and an extra £50 million out of the money already distributed for humanitarian aid, but there is no doubt that what is needed is not just that humanitarian aid, but an end to the conflict, because the security of those states neighbouring Syria is imperilled every day that the Syrian conflict goes on.

Richard Burden: Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, which the Minister and I have both visited, is now the largest refugee camp in the world, with 500,000 refugees in Jordan and more unregistered. Britain has a good record in terms of its humanitarian assistance in relation to the Syrian conflict, but what more can Britain do to ensure that other countries step up to the plate, as they need to do if the UN appeal is to be met?

Alistair Burt: Every time a colleague in the House says exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said, it helps to draw attention to the importance of the appeal. We have worked tirelessly and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has spearheaded the efforts both internationally, here in London and elsewhere to call attention to the fact that unless the UN appeal is met, this greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century and for many years before will leave a lasting scar, because it is not just at the end of the conflict that help will be needed. It will take years for people to go back. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the crisis, as we do almost every single day.

India (Non-payment of Invoices)

Laurence Robertson: What recent discussions he has had with the Indian Government on the non-payment of invoices submitted by Satellite Information Services following its coverage of the 2010 Commonwealth games.

Mark Simmonds: We have raised the issue with the Indian Government on a number of occasions, including at ministerial level, and continue to do so with relevant officials, most recently in July. As my hon. Friend will be aware, progress on the issue has been delayed pending the outcome of judicial proceedings.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware that the report by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation exonerated the company of any criminal wrongdoing over a year ago. I think that he will also be aware that the court has met regularly to discuss the report but has been adjourned on every single occasion. Does he agree that the prolonged case leaves the company in a very difficult position, and will he continue to do everything he can to speed the matter up?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the length of time the case has taken. He is correct to point out that the police filed a report to the
	court in July 2012 but that the formal judicial process has not concluded. He will also be aware that the time scale for the proceedings is, of course, a matter for the Indian courts, but I can give both him and the company the assurance that we sympathise with the position it is in and will continue to raise the issue with the Indian Government.

China (Human Rights)

Nicholas Dakin: What recent representations he has made to the Chinese Government on human rights. [R]

William Hague: Foreign Office officials last raised our concerns about human rights issues with the Chinese Government on 23 July. We have also proposed dates for the next UK-China human rights dialogue and are waiting for the Chinese Government to respond.

Nicholas Dakin: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Chinese Government’s response to Tibetan self-immolations is of grave concern. Will the Foreign Secretary raise concerns about Dolma Gyab’s treatment and take steps to ensure that his human rights are respected by the Chinese authorities?

William Hague: Yes. According to state media reports, Dolma Gyab was sentenced to death on 15 August. We urge the Chinese authorities to commute the sentence and give a reprieve. We firmly believe that all trials should be free and fair and in line with international standards. We remain extremely concerned about reports of self-immolations and call on all parties to use their influence to bring them to an end.

James Gray: I call attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: namely, a visit to Tibet at the cost of the Chinese, and a visit to the Dalai Lama at Dharamsala at the cost of the Tibet Society. Although it is right to be deeply concerned about human rights abuses in China and elsewhere, does the Secretary of State not agree that excessive concentration on them or excessively large noises about them, especially if linked to any talk of a free Tibet, risk exactly the opposite of the end we all want: religious and political freedom within a sovereign People’s Republic of China?

William Hague: Of course, human rights issues are by no means the only issues we discuss with the Chinese Government and others; there is a vast range of issues to discuss. But I think that we should always be clear in the United Kingdom about our belief in universal human rights and never be afraid to give our advocacy for those rights. That includes relations with China.

Trading with Illegal Israeli Settlements

Alex Cunningham: What advice his Department has given to UK businesses on trading with illegal Israeli settlements.

Alistair Burt: When asked by companies, we give a clear statement of our view on those settlements: they are illegal, an obstacle to peace and not helpful in creating the solution to the two-state process. In line with the publication tomorrow of the UK action plan on business and human rights, we are updating our guidance for those working in overseas markets in relation to this issue, and that will include Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Alex Cunningham: In the light of UK businesses continuing and expanding trade and investment in the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, will he confirm that it is actually wrong for them to do so? Does he not agree that a bit of advice is now insufficient and that he needs to take practical action to end these shameful activities?

Alistair Burt: No, I do not. I think that providing advice to companies that are in a position to make their own choice, just as consumers can make their own choice through labelling of goods, is the right action. We do not support a boycott of Israel or those companies that work there, but what is most important, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is that these issues will be resolved when the negotiations currently taking place between Israel and the Palestinians are resolved and then all can look forward to a much better economic future for the region, rather than dealing with issues of restrictions.

Robert Halfon: While progress on settlements is important, is my hon. Friend aware that the threat to Israel’s security remains a real concern, especially with the threat of chemical attacks from Syria? Has he made an assessment of those possible chemical attacks, and what will be the response of the British Government if the Assad regime drops chemical weapons on Israel?

Alistair Burt: The worry of the conflict in Syria spreading over its borders is a very real one. We have seen the impact of that in Syria recently. The bombings in Tripoli recently produced from the Lebanese authorities an investigation into and indictment of pro-Assad supporters for that atrocity. Those in Israel are therefore absolutely right to be constantly aware of the risks and the dangers to them. Again, this goes to show how important it is to seek a resolution of the conflict in Syria, on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is spending so much time.

Simon Hughes: The Government have always been very clear about what is legal and illegal in international law in relation to Israel and the settlements. Now that the very welcome peace talks are under way, can Ministers assure us that they will continue to urge all parties—businesses, the voluntary sector and others—to do the things that will support the peace process and remind people that keeping talking round the table is now the paramount objective because it is the best chance, possibly the last chance, to get some progress in the near future?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend has it absolutely right. A key part of the work that is going on at the moment is to make very clear to Palestinians and to
	Israel the economic benefits that will flow from success in the peace talks that are going on. That is very much work in progress. If the talks are successful, we will be talking about the opportunities for Palestine and for Israel rather than having the conversations we continually need to have about the difficulties caused by settlements and the like.

West Africa

Lyn Brown: What recent discussions he has had on the threat from terrorist groups, organised crime and piracy in west Africa.

Mark Simmonds: We take the threat of criminal and terrorist groups in west Africa seriously. Officials and Ministers have had a significant number of productive discussions with west African Governments, including the Foreign Secretary and me meeting the Nigerian President’s special envoy and my own visit to Ghana in July, where I met the President and the Ghanaian Foreign Minister.

Lyn Brown: I pay tribute to the success of the British contribution to the international effort to suppress piracy off the west coast of Somalia. What specific assistance will the UK provide to deal with the growing problems of piracy in west Africa?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising these very important issues. There are clear differences between the piracy off the east coast of Africa and the west coast of Africa. I have offered to the relevant west African Governments our experiences and those of the international community, and we are helpful where we can be. Only yesterday, I discussed with the Cameroonian Foreign Minister the implementation of the agreement that was set out in Yaoundé between the 13 Heads of State from west and central Africa exactly to address the problems of maritime insecurity off the west African coast.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister will be well aware that terrorist groups are roaming throughout north and west Africa, from Sinai in the east to Mali in the west. Throughout the region, this state of affairs is exacerbated by struggling economies, and it is causing instability. Does he agree that what is needed, very urgently, is a regional initiative?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is exactly right to highlight the regional nature of the particular challenges that are faced in west and northern Africa. The principal terrorist threat in west Africa is from the extremist group Boko Haram, which kidnapped French nationals in Cameroon in April. That is why we have put together a north and west Africa strategic framework to tackle the region-wide threats. It is also why the G8 focused on trying to provide a counter-terrorism strategy, which importantly included building security, the rule of law and capacity, and on tackling criminal trafficking as well as the terrorist threat.

John Spellar: I am very pleased that the Minister recognises that piracy off the coast of west Africa is part of a wider range of threats, including, as has been mentioned, the infiltration of terrorism
	from the north and organised crime from the drugs trade. Will he expand on concrete proposals he has made to west African countries, but also, particularly, to our wider allies, as to what action can be taken to counteract these multiple threats to the stability of countries in the region?

Mark Simmonds: There are a number of key initiatives to support, through technical facilitation, the west African countries and to enable co-operation with our Navy, in its visits to the region, to train the necessary west African naval capacity to deal with these challenges. Ultimately, however, as we found in east Africa, the solution is on land, not on sea, so we are working with west African Governments to try to provide economic and developmental assistance to make sure that people have economic hope and the ability to provide for their families, rather than piracy off the west coast of Africa.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Pat Glass: What discussions he has had with the UN special envoy for the great lakes on the situation in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mark Simmonds: We are very concerned about the current situation in eastern DRC, in particular the impact on the civilian population in the region. I spoke to Mary Robinson about this most recently on 27 August, following an earlier bilateral meeting, and I made clear the UK’s full support for the UN and MONUSCO as they work to protect civilians against the M23 rebels.

Pat Glass: There were reports last week of fighting between the M23 rebels and UN peacekeepers. Will the Minister give us details of the steps the Government are taking, including with the UN, to put a stop to this fighting?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise her concerns about the fighting that took place in the eastern part of the DRC. We have been working with the international community, including the United Nations. I have spoken, and offered the United Kingdom’s full support, to Martin Kobler, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative who is in charge of MONUSCO, and to Mary Robinson. I have also spoken to the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in order to urge restraint, as I have to the Rwandan Foreign Minister. President Museveni of Uganda has called for talks in Kampala on 5 September, and I very much hope that that will be the beginning of the process so that everybody is focused on implementing the peace and security framework that was set out after the problems a few months ago.

Crispin Blunt: The humanitarian emergency in that part of Africa is grave and long-standing. What would we say to China, as it acquires interests and, gradually, the ability to project military power there, if it invoked international humanitarian law to intervene militarily and there was opposition from other members of the Security Council?

Mark Simmonds: I have seen no evidence that the Chinese propose to intervene militarily in the eastern DRC. The United Nations Security Council is unified in its determination to provide assistance to the DRC Government in providing security and stability in the eastern DRC. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no long-term military solution. There need to be military, political and economic solutions to ensure sustainable economic development and growth for the benefit of the people who live in eastern DRC.

EU (Role of National Parliaments)

Andrea Leadsom: What plans he has to increase the role of national Parliaments in the EU.

David Lidington: National Parliaments are the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union. We are developing ideas to increase the powers of national Parliaments to hold EU decision makers to account, including more effective scrutiny and better checks on the proportionality and subsidiarity of EU legislation.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He has raised the question of introducing a red card that would enable national Parliaments to resist future legislation. Would he consider also applying that to existing legislation to enable Governments to get rid of some of the more onerous legislation put out by the EU?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend puts her finger on a point that is a cause of frustration not just to us, but to the Governments of a number of European Union member states, namely that there are pieces of legislation on the European statute book that burden industry and that Governments wish to revisit. The retrospective red card that my hon. Friend advocates would, indeed, be a smart way to resolve this problem.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is also important, of course, that EU Governments and member states comply with the decisions of the European Court. Will the Government now consider taking to the European Council the question of the British and other European citizens who have failed to get justice and equal pension rights from the Italian Government for more than 20 years, in spite of numerous decisions by the Italian courts?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent champion of the rights of the lettori in Italy, and I pay tribute to his work on that. We will certainly explore every possible avenue to ensure that the Italian Government deliver on their clear legal and moral responsibilities to ensure that those lecturers are paid the money to which they are entitled.

Topical Questions

Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: I will attend the meeting of European Foreign Ministers in Vilnius on Friday and Saturday, where the focus will be the middle east peace process and Syria. The drafting of the new constitution in Egypt begins this week. We will watch that process carefully and hope that it will be inclusive and uphold human rights.

Andrew Love: In the light of recent human rights violations, will the Government review their decision to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November? As part of that review, will they set out their objectives and what targets the Sri Lankan Government need to meet?

William Hague: We are very concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about human rights in Sri Lanka, including media freedom. We raise those issues regularly with the Sri Lankan Government. The Prime Minister and I have decided to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka. We think that the Commonwealth and its future matter so much that we must do that, no matter what the location. However, we will do so in a way that draws attention to the issues. We and other countries will continue to press Sri Lanka on those issues over the coming weeks.

Nicholas Soames: In view of the disappointing vote in the House the other night, will my right hon. Friend confirm that British ambassadors throughout the middle east will be especially strong in convincing our partners, allies and friends of our continuing staunch commitment to the middle east?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely—I give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Notwithstanding the vote last week, the United Kingdom remains highly active in many ways, as we have already discussed in questions, including through our humanitarian assistance and our diplomatic work, in pushing forward the middle east peace process, in our determination to bring about a political settlement in Syria, and in helping the stability of Lebanon and Jordan. The United Kingdom must always play a strong role in international affairs, including by helping to bring stability to the middle east.

Douglas Alexander: A few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary mentioned his support for the drafting of a new constitution in Egypt. What is the view of the British Government on recent reports that the interim Government in Egypt are considering a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood?

William Hague: I merely referred to the fact that the constitution is being drafted, rather than expressing my support for it; we will have to see what is in it. Attempts in Egypt and elsewhere to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood will be a mistake in the long term. Quite apart from the obvious considerations about human rights and democracy, I do not think that they will bring long-term stability to Egypt. It is important that Egypt’s democracy is inclusive. Egyptian leaders, in a very polarised society, have to find a way towards that. We hope that the constitution will be drafted in an inclusive way that allows for a participatory democracy in which a wide range of views can be represented.

Therese Coffey: The report about the balance of competences review came out in the summer. Does my right hon. Friend agree, like me, with the recommendation that we should seek to curtail the initiative of the Commission to propose over-regulative directives?

David Lidington: As my hon. Friend says, we certainly need to look for every opportunity to curtail over-burdensome regulation. Indeed, last year we led a successful initiative to exempt micro-businesses from future EU regulations as a default position. That shows that the Government not only make promises, but deliver results in Europe.

Stella Creasy: Further to the Foreign Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), may I press the Government to be more explicit about what progress they are seeking ahead of the meeting in November, given the very worrying reports about human rights violations in Sri Lanka?

William Hague: All parties in this House seek progress in Sri Lanka on a wide range of issues, including implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission; ensuring that there is media freedom and the operation of non-governmental organisations; and ensuring that not only is there reconstruction after the conflict, but that all political persuasions have a genuine ability to participate in democracy. We are looking for continued improvements in Sri Lanka across quite a broad front and we will be able to make those points at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November.

Christopher Pincher: This morning the Azerbaijan all-party group, which I chair, met Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recently announced BP-led trans-Adriatic pipeline further augments our relations with that country, and say what further steps the FCO can take to cement our relations with that important player in the south Caucasus?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Yesterday I talked to our ambassador-designate to Azerbaijan, who will go out to Baku within a matter of days. We warmly welcome the work of the BP consortium on the pipeline, and it is a further development of what is already a substantial British economic relationship with Azerbaijan. The Government will do everything they can to foster that relationship, while at the same time having open conversations with our Azerbaijani counterparts about other issues that matter to us both, including security and human rights.

Heidi Alexander: Last week the Foreign Secretary tweeted that he had spoken to John Kerry after last Thursday’s vote. Has he also spoken to his Russian counterpart since the vote? If not, why not, and, if he has, what was said?

William Hague: I will try to remember the sequence of that question. I speak regularly to my Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and I think I last spoke to him on Wednesday last week. That was before our deliberations
	in this House and therefore not since the vote, but I speak to him regularly and I spoke to him twice last week. The Prime Minister will meet President Putin later this week at the G20, so our intense contact with Russia over Syria continues. They know our positions well, and we will continue to try to work with Russia to bring about a conference in Geneva and work towards a political solution in Syria.

Oliver Colvile: Following Robert Mugabe’s re-election—or supposed re-election—as President of Zimbabwe, what discussion has my right hon. Friend, or other hon. Friends, had with the Southern African Development Community, and would he be willing to make a statement on potential sanctions?

Mark Simmonds: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have engaged closely with leaders of SADC countries, the African Union, the EU and the US in support of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. In the light of the serious allegations of election irregularities, our message has been consistent: a peaceful election is not enough. I assure my hon. Friend that I will be visiting three SADC countries over the next week. On sanctions, I confirm that we will continue to work with EU partners to ensure an appropriate and robust EU response to the political and democratic situation in Zimbabwe. It is important that the EU shows leadership.

Tom Blenkinsop: What conversations have the Government had with the Lebanese and Saudi Governments following the detention of Saudi diplomats in southern Beirut last week, and what conversations have they had with our allies in case the conflict in Syria spills out into Lebanon?

Alistair Burt: I have not had any specific conversations about those arrests and kidnappings, but I make clear to the hon. Gentleman that we maintain constant contact with the Lebanese and Saudi Governments about the risks of an overspill of Syria into those areas. As I indicated in a previous answer, there are clear signs that the Assad regime is seeking further to destabilise Lebanon directly. The continuing risks of that conflict overrunning its borders are genuine and very real.

Stephen McPartland: Stevenage is home to the Coptic orthodox cathedral in the UK. What representations have Ministers made on the ongoing religious violence towards the Coptic community in Egypt?

William Hague: That is an important dimension of events in Egypt, and we have condemned violence against churches, particularly the burning of 12 churches in August during the disturbances that followed the breaking up of sit-ins and demonstrations in Cairo. It is important that we urge everyone in Egypt—as I did earlier—towards inclusive political dialogue, but condemn all acts of violence, including those against Copts.

Susan Elan Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that several non-partisan commentators have expressed concerns that any military strikes on Syria could result in increased tensions between the various faith and cultural groups in the country. Does he accept their assertions in part or whole?

William Hague: Those issues were the subject of our debate last week. The hon. Lady may have gathered that, in the light of that vote, we are not planning to put forward the same proposition to the House. She could reserve her comments for the unlikely event of such a further debate.

Stephen Gilbert: Over the summer, we have seen a significant increase in homophobic attacks in Russia since the introduction of new anti-gay and anti-lesbian laws there. What representations has the Minister made to the Russian Government on that issue, and will he commit to raising it at the G20?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are very concerned not only about the attacks he mentions, but about the new legislation that the Russian Duma has placed on the statute book. Those concerns have been raised directly with the Russians by the Prime Minister, by the Foreign Secretary and by me. It is the Prime Minister’s intention to talk to President Putin about the matter in the context of other human rights conversations this week.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In seven days’ time, the people of Gibraltar will celebrate their national day. I hope they can do so in a spirit of peace and stability. I welcome the statements that the Secretary of State has made from the Dispatch Box today, but may I make it abundantly clear to the Spanish that, if they continue their hostility towards the British people of Gibraltar, he will tell the Spanish ambassador in London to pack his sombrero, straw donkey and sangria, and go?

William Hague: The views on both sides of the House on the subject are clear. I am pleased to say that the support for the people of Gibraltar, for constitutional rights and sovereignty, and for our position on sovereignty, is also clear. There have been occasions in recent weeks when we have summoned the Spanish ambassador, but if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we will use slightly more diplomatic language than he is recommending to Her Majesty’s Government.

Julian Lewis: On Thursday evening, the Prime Minister gave an unqualified pledge to the House and the country that he had heard the message and that we will not be involved in military action in Syria, yet parts of the media are dominated by people who wanted the vote to go the other way saying we should have another vote. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm once and for all that we can rely on the pledge that the Prime Minister gave on Thursday evening?

William Hague: I can confirm what we have all said, including the Prime Minister. The House has made its decision, and we respect that decision. As other Ministers
	have said, including the Defence Secretary yesterday, we are not planning to return to the same vote or the same debate again.

Ben Bradshaw: When, after that vote, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister for an assurance that Britain would not take action without the Government returning to the House for another vote, why did not the Prime Minister simply give that assurance rather than rule action out completely?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that the vote was on whether to have a further vote. The proposition that the Government put to the House was to have a second vote if military action was to be contemplated. That motion was defeated—Opposition Members voted against having a second vote. That was the decision of the House.

John Baron: In welcoming the Prime Minister’s clear assertion that we will not be involved militarily in Syria, may I urge the Government to go the extra diplomatic mile? Precisely because we are not agreeing with Iran, and because it is a participant in that vicious civil war, I suggest we should lobby for its inclusion in any forthcoming peace conference, including at the G20.

William Hague: If I may say so, few questions today have reflected a rather cheery view of Iranian diplomacy on
	those matters. Iran has been actively engaged in assisting widespread murder by the Assad regime and has not so far expressed its support for the outcome of the first conference in Geneva—the creation of a transitional Government—let alone contributed to a second conference in Geneva. The role Iran is prepared to play, rather than our attitude towards Iran, is crucial.

Chris Bryant: Gibraltar is British—end of story. It is certainly true that the Spanish Foreign Minister seems determined to get himself good headlines in the right-wing press, but may I urge the Foreign Secretary not to rise to the Spanish bait? Just keep calm and carry on.

William Hague: I am glad to hear an endorsement that Gibraltar is unequivocally British—end of story. That was not there 10 years ago from the Labour party, but that is progress and we must welcome it. We respond to actions rather than rhetoric on the part of Spain. The hon. Gentleman has just witnessed me refuse to rise to the rhetoric—albeit agreeing with the direction of policy—of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). That will continue in the Government’s approach.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but, as ever with FCO questions, demand hugely outstrips supply and we must move on.

Points of Order

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an interview with Decca Aitkenhead in The Guardian on 30 August, the violinist Nigel Kennedy was asked if he voted in the last general election, to which he responded:
	“Oh yeah. In fact, my wife wasn’t there, so I got another friend to go and vote for Jackson with my wife’s voting card.”
	Asked if he was being serious, he stated:
	“Yeah, yeah, man, and it was really worth it in that case.”
	That admission undermines the democratic process and is a criminal offence. There have been many accusations of voting irregularities in many seats, including my own, but this is the first time that someone has publicly admitted to having been complicit in the act of personation. What action should occur in this scenario, where wrongdoing has been admitted?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for his point of order and for his courtesy in notifying me of it in advance. He is alleging that a criminal offence may have been committed. That is a matter for the police, not for me.

Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for informing my office that he was going to raise this issue today? I entirely endorse what you have said, Mr Speaker. As it is my understanding that the allegations are being examined by the police under the Representation of the People Act 2000, I have nothing further to say on this issue.

Mr Speaker: What a splendid outbreak of consensus from two periodic practitioners of the art of it. We will leave it there for today.

Young Apprenticeships

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Dominic Raab: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for young apprenticeships for 14 to 16 year olds; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is about expanding educational opportunity, plugging the skills gap and giving 14 to 16-year-olds a credible, work-oriented vocational option. The 50% target for young people going to university introduced by the previous Labour Government was inevitably something of an arbitrary distraction, and I am relieved that the coalition discarded it. As the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, it led to Mickey Mouse courses at mediocre institutions.
	University is only one piece of the educational jigsaw and it is not right for all youngsters. Some children are not inspired by academic study. Yes, they need basic numeracy and literacy, but we must ditch the snobbery that looks down on vocational alternatives to getting a degree. That lingering prejudice serves neither the economy nor youngsters looking to equip themselves for an increasingly competitive labour market. With the raising of the school-leaving age to 18, we risk compounding this mistake unless it is flexible enough to accommodate an early transition into work. Youngsters need wider options and the absence of choice is particularly stark for those from lower income households who have less financial support to fall back on.
	The coalition Government have made huge strides in promoting the “tech bacc”, university technology colleges and apprenticeships, but we still lack a work-based alternative for 14 to 16-year-olds. However, that is precisely the age in state schools when truancy rates spike by 75%. It is at that age that the number of half-days missed by persistent truants doubles. It is the critical moment when increasing numbers of children become dislocated from school. We know why: research from the Department for Education in 2007 found that many youngsters became disaffected with school because they question its relevance, find it too conceptual rather than hands-on and find it demoralising persisting with academic learning if that is not where their talents lie. According to research by the Prince’s Trust, one in three youngsters leaving school with poor GCSEs believe that they will end up on benefits. That is a tragedy. Today, a report by the Centre for Social Justice highlights the acute underperformance of white 15-year-old boys from poorer backgrounds.
	Why not offer those youngsters the option of a young apprenticeship between the ages of 14 and 16? As Sir Chris Woodhead, former chief inspector of schools, argues:
	“If a child at 14 has mastered basic literacy and numeracy, I would be very happy for that child to leave school and go into a combination of apprenticeship and further education training and a practical, hands-on, craft-based training that takes them through into a job.”
	He continues:
	“Does anybody seriously think these kids who are truanting at 13, 14 are going to stay in school in a purposeful, meaningful way through to 18? It just seems to me the triumph of ideological hope over reality.”
	He is absolutely right.
	Young apprenticeships were first introduced by Tony Blair’s Government back in 2004, to plug precisely the gap that I am talking about. They offered a two-year programme, combining English and maths with optional subjects such as engineering or construction, along with various others. Crucially, pupils spent two days each week in the workplace, gaining hands-on experience and gathering practical skills. That route rapidly became immensely popular, with the numbers rising from 1,000 pupils at the outset to 9,000 just three years later. Young apprenticeships went on to win praise from Ofsted, following reviews in 2007 and 2012. Ofsted noted the strong personal development of students, high attendance and positive feedback from employers.
	In 2010, the Young People’s Learning Agency found that 78% of those in young apprenticeships achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, compared with the national average of 64%. Above all, and perhaps most interestingly, participants with lower levels of prior attainment appeared to gain most relative to peers outside the programme. Of the cohort evaluated, virtually all went into further education, training, full apprenticeships or a job. Just 1% became unemployed. The success of young apprenticeships also mirrors international experience. They are popular in Australia. In Switzerland, youngsters can spend two days a week in school and the rest in company training. Germany also has a dual system from 15, balancing time in the classroom with hands-on, workplace experience.
	Here in the UK, young apprenticeships used to enjoy strong bipartisan political support, but in truth the last Government lost interest, and the shadow Chancellor, then Education Secretary, wound them down. Nevertheless, there remains substantial cross-party support for reviving young apprenticeships, both on the Government Benches and among many in the Labour party—those who really get the challenge of boosting social mobility. I am grateful for that cross-party support and in particular to the right hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who are backing this Bill today.
	As well as giving wider opportunity to youngsters, particularly those from tougher backgrounds, there is a strong economic case for young apprenticeships, which is equally compelling. The growing proportion of people not in active employment being supported by those in work is economically unsustainable. We need to be promoting a wider range of routes into the workplace, including youngsters with the right skills. For all the soul searching about the emergence of an hourglass economy in Britain, too few recognise the opportunity to nurture the vocational route into well-paid jobs,
	which are increasingly in demand, as well as its value as an entrepreneurial stepping stone to setting up what can be a profitable business.
	Labour said it wound down young apprenticeships because of cost, and it is true: they cost about £3,000 a student more than if they had been in school. At their peak in 2007-08, young apprenticeships cost just under £34 million. That might be because the scheme was never allowed to develop the economies of scale achieved by apprenticeships for those over 16, but in any case that cost is dwarfed by that of the failure to provide suitable educational options for teenagers. Research carried out for the Audit Commission found that each teenager between the age of 16 and 18 not in education, employment or training cost £56,000 over their lifetime, mainly through welfare benefits and crime.
	Government Members already recognise, through the pupil premium, the additional price tag on schooling youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds. I for one have no problem saying that we should invest a bit more in ambitious youngsters—the grafters rather than the geeks, if you like—who want to get into work sooner, rather than keeping their heads buried in books. The educational foundation Edge argues that limiting choice for 14 to 16-year-olds is
	“inherently unfair, and in a rapidly changing economic climate, it is not sensible either. Young people need to be able to take academic and vocational courses in varying combinations linked to their aims and interests.”
	The Bill would revive young apprenticeships. It would amend the Education and Skills Act 2008 to enable us to provide young apprenticeships as an alternative to staying in full-time schooling until the age of 18. We could easily cover the costs involved by scrapping the Government Equalities Office, which, frankly, just churns out pointless regulation and political correctness. Let us make it abundantly clear that Government Members stand for an aspirational society and not for social engineering. Reviving young apprenticeships would promote genuine opportunities for youngsters and strengthen the skills base of our economy, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Dominic Raab, Robert Halfon, Alan Johnson, Priti Patel, Mr Frank Field, Jackie Doyle-Price, Laura Sandys, Nadim Zahawi, Harriett Baldwin and Caroline Dinenage present the Bill.
	Mr Dominic Raab accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 November, and to be printed (Bill 103).

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	As a coalition Government, we inherited a legacy of a lack of trust and confidence in our political system. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Labour Members would laugh at that thought, as they were responsible for 13 years of it. To tackle this, we have sought to be the most transparent Government in history. We are the first Government to publish details of meetings that Ministers and permanent secretaries have with external organisations, of our gifts and hospitality and of departmental business plans, as well as a wide range of raw data.
	The Bill takes practical steps to take those principles forward. It implements our coalition commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, providing transparency in who lobbies whom, and for whom.

Tom Harris: Will the Leader of the House place in the House of Commons Library the results of the public consultation that he has carried out on the Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of two things: first, that a consultation took place on the issues relating to a statutory register of lobbyists in January 2012 and, secondly, that the Labour party did not respond to that consultation, so seriously did it take it.
	The introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will fulfil a commitment made in “The Coalition: our programme for government”. There are two key principles reflected in the Bill. The first is that transparency is central to accountability and that the public should be able to see how third parties seek to influence the political system. The second is that third parties should act in an open and accountable way. The Bill will give the public more confidence about the way third parties interact with the political system, including about how much money they spend on political campaigning, especially if they seek to influence elections directly.

Tracey Crouch: As a proud former lobbyist, both in-house and in consultancy—indeed, I learned my trade in the same firm in which Mr Speaker himself had worked—I fully appreciate the value that the industry brings to inform and educate Members of Parliament, often on very technical issues. Having worked for many charities and voluntary organisations, too, I recognise their concerns about this Bill, so will my right hon. Friend explain how or why the Bill will not, as many fear it will, gag them, but will allow them to continue their excellent work of informing MPs as a healthy part of the democratic process?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It must have been a fine training ground indeed that she shares with you, Mr Speaker. I will, of course, come on to explain in detail how aspects of the non-party campaigning provisions will work, but let me give this assurance. We are very clear that we are in no sense seeking substantively to change the boundary between campaigning on policies and issues, which charities and other third parties do to a substantial extent, and being required to register spending for electoral purposes—[Interruption.] We are not proposing to change the boundary, so charities, think-tanks, non-governmental organisations and campaign organisations should not be alarmed that this Bill will impact in any sense on their ability to campaign on policy issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: All right, all right. I have given way before and will do so again. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) was the first to rise, so I give way to her.

Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the Leader of the House, and I am quite delighted to have the opportunity to burst his bubble of confidence, because his Bill has created almost a fire-storm in my constituency. My constituents are appalled at what they regard as a gagging Bill. They wish to see a list of lobbyists that is transparent to ensure that Government cannot be bought—even though that is a debatable issue. They know that the Bill as it stands would prevent democratic voices from being heard.

Andrew Lansley: I look forward to the hon. Lady having an opportunity after today’s debate to go back to her constituents to tell them that the things they are alarmed about will not happen. I am very clear and the Bill is very clear. [Interruption.] I will come on to deal with this in more detail later, but let me explain to hon. Members that election law already has a clear provision that determines that if third parties wish to engage in expenditure, the intention or effect of which is to procure electoral success, they are required, beyond a certain point, to register with the Electoral Commission in respect of that expenditure—and there are limits on it: that expenditure is controlled.
	At the last election, I think that only a couple of charities registered for this purpose and the levels of expenditure were relatively modest. Other third parties—a larger number of them—that were not charities engaged in such third-party expenditure, but charities by and large did not. That does not mean that they cannot campaign during an election period, because they campaign on policies and issues and they interact with political parties on those issues, and they will continue to be completely free to do so. All the Bill does—it is the right thing to do—is, first, to make sure that the limit is more appropriate for the future so that it does not allow those third parties to engage in distorting activity during elections; and, secondly, to extend the definition of controlled expenditure so that it includes advertising, rallies and such like, as well as electoral material, and to disaggregate the total into parliamentary constituencies so that third parties cannot disproportionately concentrate their spending in individual constituencies. I think that all of that is perfectly rational.

James Duddridge: Is not my right hon. Friend missing the elephant in the room, which is the fact that only two organisations spent over the £377,000 cap? The first, by quite a long way, was Unison. The reason why there is agitation on the Opposition Benches is that they do not like having political expenditure limits on political parties on account of their own parent organisations, the trade unions?

Andrew Lansley: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is accurate because at the last election, relatively few organisations—only two, I think—spent a sum of money that was above the proposed limit. It is conceivable that a whole range of organisations might try to spend large amounts of money to influence directly votes for candidates and political parties rather than campaigning on policies and issues. It is important—election law already provides for this—that elections are fought essentially between political parties, and the expenditure undertaken to support candidates of political parties should be authorised by them. That is why many people donate to political parties to support the campaign at a constituency level.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: If Members will forgive me, I am at risk of dealing with part 2 before I have dealt with part 1. I am going to talk simply about part 1—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

Angela Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Many people would want him to reassure third parties and charities, but he seems to me to be complacent about the issue. The Electoral Commission briefing for today’s debate states that,
	“the Bill creates significant regulatory uncertainty for large and small organisations that campaign on, or even discuss, public policy issues in the year before the…general election, and imposes significant new burdens on such organisations”.
	Surely, the right hon. Gentleman’s complacent attitude is completely at odds with what the Electoral Commission—his own regulator—has written to all of us.

Andrew Lansley: I had conversations yesterday with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which helpfully supplied us with a copy of its legal advice, which of course illustrates that, technically, the uncertainties that are being talked about could in large part be construed to relate to existing legislation rather than the Bill that we are bringing forward. In truth, it is the responsibility of the Charity Commission, where charities are concerned, and the Electoral Commission for all third parties, to work together to ensure the soundness of the definitions in the Bill. Frankly, they are substantively the same definitions for electoral purposes—[Interruption.] The definitions on controlled expenditure and on the appropriate limits are changed, but the definition that relates to spending being for electoral purposes if it is intended or has the effect of procuring or promoting support for candidates of political parties is not changed. The Electoral Commission knows that part of its job is to make sure that that boundary is policed, and the guidance on that is very clear.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I want to make some progress before giving way again.
	As I say, we need to give confidence to the public about the way in which third parties interact with the political system, including about how much money they spend on political campaigning, especially if they seek to influence elections directly. The Bill will also give the confidence that trade unions know who their members are. These are sensible and reasonable steps: we are not setting out to create a burdensome bureaucracy or to deter legitimate campaigning or representation.
	Let me deal with part 1 first.

Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Lansley: I will give way in a few moments.
	Part 1 relates to the creation of a statutory register of consultant lobbyists. Let me be clear, first, that lobbying is a necessary—indeed an inevitable and often welcome—part of policy making and the parliamentary process. We should not seek to prevent lobbying, but to make it transparent who is lobbying whom and for what.

Barry Sheerman: On that very point, let me assure the Leader of the House that many Opposition Members, particularly myself, believe that lobbying is at the very heart of our democracy. We should have it, but it should be regulated and should be transparent. What worries us is, first, that many charities believe that the Bill will have deleterious effect, but secondly, we are worried about all the people that are left out—the big law firms, for example. Many of those firms are 50% lobbyists and 50% lawyers, yet they will not be tackled by the Bill. Big accountancy firms that are full of lobbyists are the same, as are the in-house lobbyists of these major companies. Why are they being left out of this register?

Andrew Lansley: I think we agree about the intention, although I would add that Parliament is at the heart of our democracy and lobbying is an essential aspect of the way in which Parliament does its job. It is clear that Members on both sides of the House have been lobbied extensively in relation to the Bill, and rightly so.
	We are not leaving out a large number of people who engage in consultant lobbying. If people have a substantial business involving such lobbying, they should register, and that will be made clear.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I should give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan).

Cheryl Gillan: I think every Member would agree with the Leader of the House that we want lobbying to be transparent. As he knows, however, many people all over the country are fighting a project known as HS2, and they firmly believe that the Bill contains provisions that will inhibit their effectiveness in ensuring that their voice is heard by the Government and by Ministers. Will the Leader of the House undertake to give specific consideration to the effect on anti-HS2 campaigns that
	is apparent from provisions that are already in the Bill, and to ensure, when examining the Bill further, that the voice of those people will never be inhibited by legislation?

Andrew Lansley: Let me give my right hon. Friend this assurance. I believe that absolutely nothing in this legislation would prevent those who campaign on issues relating to the High Speed 2 rail route from making their case as forcefully as they wish. However, if at the time of an election they went further and spent money on trying to procure or prevent the election of particular candidates, and if that expenditure exceeded a certain limit, they would quite properly be required, by existing legislation as well as by this Bill, to register and be accountable for it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I shall carry on for a bit, but I will give way again after that. I intend to be generous and open about this.
	We agree that lobbying is necessary, but, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), transparency is key. We want to know who is lobbying, and for whom. However, there is a gap in the current transparency regime. When Ministers meet consultant lobbyists, it is not always clear on whose behalf they are lobbying. We want to rectify that, and the specific aim of the register is to put the information in the public domain.
	I am grateful to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its work in examining part 1 of the Bill last year, and for its subsequent scrutiny of the draft version of the entire Bill.

Graham Allen: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Let me apologise to the hon. Gentleman before I give way to him. I think the Committee was irritated by the long delay that took place before the Government responded to the report that it published in June last year. I reiterate our apology for that, although, as the Committee knows, our response had to wait for our policy conclusions, and that took some time. Let me add, however, that in most instances the Committee, and many who have proffered alternative plans, are seeking to do something different from what the Bill sets out to do. They are seeking to regulate lobbying activity, while we are seeking to create a transparency regime so that we can see who is lobbying, but are not attempting to control the industry.

Graham Allen: I thank the Leader of the House for apologising on the Floor of the House for the way in which the Government have treated the all-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept his apology, and hope he will be able to help us create a Bill that is viable for all parties.
	The Leader of the House mentioned that my Committee had examined part 1 of the Bill. We did not examine part 1; we only examined the consultation document relating to what has become part 1, the reason being that parts 2 and 3 did not appear until one day before the recess.

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but Members—especially those who have had the privilege of being in Government—will be aware that Bills often contain more than one specific measure. What is important, and what this Bill accurately reflects, is the Government’s recognition not only of the necessity—as we saw it—for a statutory register of lobbyists that would enable us to see how third parties seek to influence the political system through consultant lobbying, but of the existence of further issues relating to third-party influence in the political system, and the need for assurances in regard to trade unions and the way in which third parties campaign during elections.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way in a moment, but let me first pursue the point about those who are trying to regulate all lobbying activity. Having thought very carefully about whether there was a considered or credible basis for taking that much wider action, we concluded that there was not, and that is therefore not our objective in the Bill. I readily accept that some people would like the Bill to be very different. Indeed, the reasoned amendment indicates that the Opposition have suddenly decided that they want to include all professional lobbyists and everything that they do in a register, although they presented no such proposal to the Government last year.

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I know that the hon. Gentleman presented a private Member’s Bill. The point is, however, that we are not aiming for the creation of the bureaucratic monster that would result from action of that kind. We are aiming for transparency rather than the control of lobbying, the result of which would be the registration of thousands of lobbyists and a requirement for a draconian system of reporting and enforcement.

Jim Shannon: The Leader of the House must be well aware that the Bill will catch grass-roots campaigners in the crossfire. Charitable and Christian groups feel that it will disadvantage them, and have pointed out that big parties can spend millions of pounds when they are picking on a little guy in politics. How would the Leader of the House respond to that?

Andrew Lansley: Let me repeat, and add to, what I have already said about charities. Charities know, and have told us, that the Charity Commission guidance is clear about the fact that they should not undertake party political activity. To that extent, there are very limited circumstances in which charities might consider it essential, from their point of view, to register their spending as spending for an electoral purpose. I am at a loss to understand how they think the Bill could have an adverse impact on their ability to campaign on policies and issues for their charitable purposes.
	The statutory register of lobbyists will require anyone who is lobbying Ministers or permanent secretaries on behalf of a third party and in return for payment to declare his or her contact details and clients on the register.

John Hemming: Schedule 1 makes an exception for Members of Parliament who lobby on behalf of people living in their constituencies, but does not refer to Members of the European Parliament, Members of devolved Administrations, city councillors and the like. Do the Government intend to require councillors who write to Ministers on behalf of their electorates to register themselves as consultant lobbyists?

Andrew Lansley: No. We believe that the position is the same as that relating to Members of Parliament, and that given the nature of what constitutes the business of consultant lobbying, the Bill would not include those who were not involved in that business.

Gerald Howarth: I share a concern that has been expressed by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who is not in the Chamber at present. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 effectively repeats a fundamentally important tenet of the House which is enshrined in the 1688 Bill of Rights, namely that anything said in this House shall not be questioned in any court of the land. Paragraph 2, however, qualifies that by stating:
	“A Member of Parliament who makes communications…on behalf of…persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying. “
	I, for example, have an interest in defence. What will happen if I raise the question of a company that is not in my constituency? Will I then be in the business of lobbying? And what about colleagues who raise questions about wind turbines? What protection is provided by the Bill of Rights?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right: schedule 1 refers specifically to the principles of exclusive cognisance and parliamentary privilege, and does not seek to impinge on them in any way. However, we consider that the normal activities of Members of Parliament could never be considered to be lobbying, and we have included exclusions in the Bill which we believe make it clear that MPs are not included. I am perfectly willing to reassure colleagues that I will continue the conversations I have had with the House authorities, and that I will continue to maintain discussions with colleagues. If there is any doubt about whether Members of Parliament might, in any form in respect of their activities in the House, be included or compromised in relation to this, we will put a specific provision into the Bill to make sure that does not happen. We will be very clear about that.

John Denham: May I remind the Leader of the House that the reason the Government decided a few months ago to bring forward the lobbying Bill was because they had dropped their proposals for plain packaging of cigarettes following the employment of a paid lobbyist of the tobacco industry as the head of the Conservative party election campaign? Given that that is the origin of this Bill, can the Leader of the House explain why no provisions in this Bill would shed any light or give any transparency on the involvement of Lynton Crosby in these matters?

Andrew Lansley: Since I am here presenting the Bill to the House and I was the Secretary of State who initiated the consultation on plain packaging, I am probably in
	quite a good position to tell the right hon. Gentleman that what he just said was complete tosh.
	To ensure—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Let us return to the question of the statutory register of lobbyists. To ensure the independence of the system—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Sit down. I am not giving way at the moment.
	To ensure the independence of the system, the register will be administered and enforced by an independent registrar of consultant lobbyists who will provide guidance on compliance and publish an online register on a quarterly basis. The registrar will have the power to issue information notices to investigate where he or she believes that consultant lobbying is taking place without registration. Where this is found, the registrar will also have the power to impose civil penalties. Criminal sanctions will be available for those guilty of deliberate non-compliance.
	The register will be funded by the lobbying industry via a subscription charge, but to reduce the burden on the smallest businesses, organisations that are not VAT-registered will not be required to pay the charge. There will therefore be no impact on the public purse as a result of these measures.

Tony Baldry: May I return briefly to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and give an example? Richard III is dead; he is clearly nobody’s constituent, yet the hon. Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley), for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) want his bones in their constituency. In campaigning for that, do they need to register under the provisions of the Bill, and if not, what is the purpose of the reference to Members of Parliament’s constituents in schedule 1? Why not simply rely on the protections to Members of Parliament in the Bill of Rights and the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009?

Andrew Lansley: We could not simply rely on the parliamentary privilege provisions because they would not extend to all the activities of Members of Parliament beyond those in this Chamber and our activities directly in relation to the House. That is why in the Bill there is, we believe, both a specific exemption in schedule 1—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) were less insistent, he might listen more.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just politely suggest to the House that, in terms of the orderly conduct of debate, it is probably as well if the Leader of the House responds to one intervention before being aggressively exhorted to take another?

Andrew Lansley: Right as ever, Mr Speaker.
	To respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), we believe there is both the exemption that Members of Parliament are not caught because they are not engaged in the
	business of lobbying and also the specific exemption in relation to representing constituents, but I will repeat what I have just said: if there is any doubt about this matter, we will come back to the House and put it beyond doubt. So I do not think colleagues should continue the debate about whether Members of Parliament are caught or not, as we will look at that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then, of course, the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron).

Caroline Lucas: The very fact that the Leader of the House is having to say he will come back to the House to address our concerns shows that this Bill is incredibly badly drafted, but the point I want to make is that recent freedom of information requests reveal that Treasury officials met fracking industry representatives 19 times in the last 10 months about their generous tax breaks, yet the public are denied any further details of that lobbying on the grounds that it could prejudice commercial interests. Is the Leader of the House not ashamed that this Bill will drastically curtail the ability of charities to campaign in the public interest on issues such as fuel poverty and energy but do nothing to curb such secretive corporate influencing?

Andrew Lansley: Of course the Bill does not constrain the ability of charities to campaign. Let us look back at 2010. Only two charities registered for expenditure for electoral purposes and they spent very little. The campaigning by third parties at the last election was not in any substantial way undertaken by charities. It was undertaken by other third parties—trade unions, companies, campaign groups and so forth. The idea that charities are in any way constrained is completely wrong.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I promised to give way to—

Chris Bryant: Please will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: Oh, the hon. Gentleman said “please”! Okay, but I will give way to the Chairman of the Standards Committee.

Kevin Barron: The Standards Committee met this morning and has agreed a report on the implications of this Bill for Members of Parliament, and we are making strong recommendations that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 should be removed and that there should be a sub-paragraph in paragraph 6 stating that any payments we get from IPSA cannot be interpreted as money for lobbying. I hope the Leader of the House will take this into account and make sure the requisite amendments are made before the Bill leaves this House at the end of next week.

Andrew Lansley: My colleagues will, of course, take what the Standards Committee has said very much into account, and I think that illustrates, contrary to what
	the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, why the Bill has not been badly drafted. This is not the first time this has happened. It happens with every piece of legislation in my experience. Sometimes we have to have belt, braces and a piece of string to make sure everybody is absolutely convinced that we are doing what we intend to do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda, but colleagues behind me on the Government Benches have also been patient.

Chris Bryant: I am deeply grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. He says this is all about transparency, but if I have got it right every single member of the public affairs team in-house at BSkyB will be able to visit as many Ministers as they want and every single lawyer employed by BSkyB to advance its case will be able to do so without any need to register. The only person who would have to register would be an independent consultant in a company that solely lobbies. How does that possibly afford greater transparency?

Andrew Lansley: It promotes transparency because if a representative of Sky visits a Minister in order to discuss that business, it is transparent that they are doing so in order to represent the interests of Sky. However, if somebody from “XYZ Corporation”, a consultant lobbying firm, visits a Minister in order to discuss somebody else’s business but it is not transparent through the ministerial diary publication who they are representing, that is not transparent. We propose to remedy that by making it transparent.

Peter Bottomley: Following on from my right hon. Friend’s exchange with the Green party member, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), this morning I received a plea from a constituent to stop bullying charities. I asked which ones she was concerned about and she said, “The Green party.” I said it is already covered. She also mentioned 38 Degrees, to which I replied, “That is not a charity”—even though it has wiped from its Wiki-entry the Labour activism of many of its founders.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The public might well think that many of the organisations that registered for electoral purposes were charities, but in fact they registered because they were seeking to undertake expenditure which would not have been regarded as charitable and would not have been lawful from the point of view of the Charity Commission’s guidance. It is overwhelmingly the case that charitable activity by charities does not constitute expenditure for electoral purposes and therefore is not in any sense constrained by this legislation. There are, however, other organisations that people might think are charities but which are not charities, or charities that set up campaigning arms that expressly do not have charitable status in order for them to undertake that activity. The law is already clear that where they seek directly to influence electoral outcomes, they should register. The Labour party’s reasoned amendment accepts that that is right and there should be such regulation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I am not giving way now. This is an important debate to which I know that colleagues want to contribute, and I want to commence by giving them the chance to hear precisely what the Bill does.
	We have heard repeated calls from the Opposition and others saying that the register should be expanded to include so-called “in-house” lobbyists, but what is not clear is what problem such an expansion would solve. As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda, when a lobbyist from Shell or the WWF, to give typical examples, comes to meet Ministers it is quite clear whose interest they are representing, and these meetings are already publicly disclosed—the public can see that they happen. That is unlike what happens with any such meetings with shadow Ministers, as the Opposition have not committed to publish their shadow ministerial diaries.
	In a debate some 10 weeks ago, I asked the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, to consider whether Opposition Front Benchers might like to agree now to publish their diaries as part of this process of openness, but I am afraid that they have not agreed to do so. While I am referring to the Opposition, I must say that I am bemused by their suggestions that we should create an unworkable bureaucracy with spiralling administrative costs without a policy rationale. There is some confused thinking there, and they are attempting to jump on a bandwagon without having considered the implications of their policies—policies that were so important to them that the Labour party did not even respond to the public consultation on our proposals last year.
	I am therefore proud that the coalition has introduced a Bill to put in place this register, which is a practical step in an area that the Labour party simply put in the “too difficult” box when in government; it failed to do anything in its 13 years in office. Our proposal addresses a specific problem. It is designed to capture professional consultant lobbyists, and that will include multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations—a point important to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who is no longer in his place. There are exclusions, however, for those operating in a representative capacity, such as the vast majority of trade associations and charities.
	I believe that the great majority of those in our Parliament and our political system behave well. But, human nature being what it is, the minority tempted to do otherwise need to know that they cannot engage in sustained, concealed efforts to peddle influence. Their activity will be brought into the open and they must expect to be held to account for their behaviour. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
	Let me turn now to the second part of the Bill.

Andrew George: My right hon. Friend said that the previous Government had put this issue in the “too difficult to do” box. A lot of those who, like me, were working in the charitable sector before we came into Parliament understand the distinction between being non-party political as a charity and being able to engage robustly in policy debate. However, if this is in the “too difficult” box—or certainly in the “difficult to do” box—and the Electoral Commission has issued a briefing indicating that it is creating regulatory uncertainty,
	would the Leader of the House agree that the programme for the Bill’s consideration is far too short? Would he agree that the programme motion needs to be rewritten and that this House needs to be given a great deal more time to consider these difficult things—as he says they are too difficult to do in many senses—and to clarify these issues to reassure the charitable and community sector?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure that I agree with the premise of what my hon. Friend says, which was that this is that difficult. Clearly, as I said before, my conversations with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations show that there are existing uncertainties for third parties as to what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes. The legislation does not clear up those difficulties because it substantively repeats the existing test, so it is important for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance to support it. However, we intend to allocate substantial time for the Bill to be considered.

Laurence Robertson: The Leader of the House said that consultant lobbyists will have to register whereas in-house lobbyists will not, and I understand that point. May I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). He asked about large accountancy companies and large firms of solicitors who represent a number of clients and frequently, understandably and rightly come to Members of Parliament and Ministers to put forward their point. Is there not a very fine dividing line between those who will be required to register and those who will not? Is my right hon. Friend happy that the person making the judgment on who should have to register could be very easily compromised?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure that it is that difficult. Either one is lobbying on behalf of one’s own organisation or as a representative of an organisation. For example, when I was Secretary of State for Health and I was meeting the British Medical Association, it was clear on whose behalf it was lobbying. If I was meeting a consultant lobbying organisation, it would not have been clear in that way. Where there is any doubt, people will be in a position to ask the registrar for the statutory register whether it is appropriate to register.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: Let me deal with the second part of the Bill—time will frustrate us otherwise, but I will give way once more before I conclude. Let me explain the second part of the Bill so that the House is clear about what it does and does not do.
	It is good that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in, whether they do it inside or outside a political party. Campaign groups play an important role in the political process. That will continue and it has never been in doubt. The intention of this Bill is to bring greater transparency when third parties campaign in an election. Relevant expenditure on such campaigns will now be more fully recorded and disclosed. To avoid the situation we see in some other countries, where vast amounts of money are spent without any bar or regulation—

Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: I said that I would give way a little later on. As I was saying, the Bill strengthens the existing limits on the campaign spending of third parties. We have spending limits on parties at elections. That ensures a degree of equality of arms, and we should not see it undermined by distorting activity of disproportionate expenditure by third parties. The limits we are setting—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members would listen, they might understand better what the Bill does. The limits we are setting will allow organisations that want to campaign still to do so. The expenditure thresholds at which third parties are required to register with the Electoral Commission are being lowered. That will allow members of the public better to identify the great number of organisations that exert influence in political campaigns.
	The Government’s clear view is that nothing in the Bill should change the basic way in which third parties campaign and register with the Electoral Commission. Currently, third parties register if they are campaigning to promote the electoral success, or otherwise enhance the standing, of a party or candidates. That will stay the same, so the argument made by the campaign group 38 Degrees that the changes stop campaigning on policy areas is not correct. The requirement to register applies only if the spending is for electoral purposes.

Pete Wishart: The Leader of the House will know that in Scotland we very much welcome the contribution of civic society to our democratic debate. He said that the Bill has implications for Scottish parliamentary elections and other elections. Does he know what those implications are yet?

Andrew Lansley: We are very clear that this has an impact on the structure of election law in the way described in the Bill, and we will go through that in detail in Committee.

Jeremy Lefroy: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has mentioned HS2. What happens when specific constituency issues such as those relating to a hospital—I am thinking of my Support Stafford Hospital campaign—only arise during an election campaign and it is not their fault that they arise in an election period?

Andrew Lansley: They will be entirely free to campaign on the issues that concern them. The issue is not whether expenditure is being undertaken during an election period but whether the expenditure is being undertaken in an election period and for electoral purposes. Overwhelmingly, campaigning by third parties in an election period is not done for electoral purposes; it is done in order to convey their views about policies and issues. That is perfectly legitimate, it is outwith the definition of “for electoral purposes” and it will not therefore be constrained.
	The Bill does change—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I will give way again later.
	The Bill does change the activities in respect of which spending may count towards the third parties’ spending limits. Those activities are being more closely aligned with the type of expenditure that is regulated for political parties, a change that the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission, advocated to us in June. I understand that that particular provision has caused concern within the charitable sector. Charity law prohibits charities from engaging in party politics, from party political campaigning, from supporting political candidates and from undertaking political activity unrelated to the charity’s purpose. The Bill does not change that.
	Charities will still be able to give support to specific policies that might also be advocated by political parties if it helps to achieve their charitable purposes. The Bill does not seek to regulate charities that simply engage with the policy of a political party. It does not prevent charities from having a view on any aspect of the policy of a party and it does not inhibit charities attempting to influence the policy of a party. Such activity would be captured only if it was carried out in such a way that it could be seen also to promote the election of a political party or candidate or otherwise to enhance their standing at an election. The situation is the same as under the current legislation and remains unchanged by this Bill. That is a key point to allay charities’ concerns.
	I recognise that the wording of the clause has caused representative bodies to be concerned, and I am keen to continue the discussions with campaigners in which colleagues and I have already taken part. I can reassure them that we are not proposing a substantive change in the test of whether third party spending is considered to be for electoral purposes.

Mike Thornton: I have genuine concerns about the change to the definition of “charitable use”, and particularly about the use of the word “activity” for electoral purposes rather than “materials”. To enable us to support the Bill and the reform, will the Leader of the House assure me that that can be looked at again, with the involvement of the charitable organisations?

Andrew Lansley: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I and my colleagues—the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is responsible for political and constitutional reform—met the NCVO again yesterday. We will continue to do so. Let me reiterate that I am not looking for a substantive change in the test of what is expenditure for electoral purposes, but we are looking for a change, advocated to us by the Electoral Commission, in what constitutes controlled expenditure so that it is not just about election materials but includes activities such as advertising and election rallies.

Graham Allen: The charitable sector is concerned about the issue, first, because the expenditure limits are tighter and will be policed, enforced and regulated in a different way and, secondly, because included in the normal expenditure envelope is stuff that has not been there before, such as staffing. In effect, that reduces charities’ ability to campaign. That is part of the rich diversity of our political life leading into a general election and it is being reduced. If the Leader of the House feels that
	that is not his intention, I am sure that everyone in the House would welcome clarification by amendment as the Bill makes progress.

Andrew Lansley: As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in his Committee and as I have said to the House, charities do not overwhelmingly undertake expenditure for electoral purposes, so we are not necessarily principally talking about charities. We are talking about third parties—by and large, they are not charities. The Electoral Commission asked us to include a different and wider definition of controlled expenditure to bring it more appropriately into line with the definition of controlled expenditure for political parties. It is not true that this is the first time that staff costs have been included, because staff costs have been included in activity under controlled expenditure up until now.
	The point is that if someone is undertaking expenditure for electoral purposes, they should expect to be regulated and proper account should be taken of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I am now 46 minutes into my speech and I am not going to give way again, because I am going to explain the remainder of the Bill’s provisions—[Interruption.] I apologise to colleagues, but I have to complete the description of what the Bill will achieve.
	The Bill also introduces a provision whereby third parties will be permitted to spend only up to a certain amount of their controlled expenditure in individual constituencies. That is to prevent a third party from directing a large proportion of its national spending limit at only a small part of the UK, thereby focusing the full force of the considerable spending available to it on a small geographical location. That would, and indeed does, allow disproportionately large amounts of money to distort election campaigns and the political process.
	A number of third parties campaign in a way that supports a particular political party or its candidates. That is entirely legitimate, but it must not be allowed to become a vehicle for evading party spending rules. We believe that it is right that the political party should be able to oversee which organisations offer it significant campaign support. The Bill introduces a new measure that will require third parties that spend significant sums campaigning in a way that can reasonably be regarded as supporting a particular political party or its candidates to be specifically authorised by the political party to campaign in that manner. That spending will then be counted towards both the third party and the political party’s spending limits.
	The transparency of the regulatory regime is enhanced by the Bill. When third parties campaign to support political parties, expenditure will now be more fully recorded and disclosed. Donations to third parties will now have to be published in advance of an election, rather than after it. Third parties will have to provide a statement of accounts. Those measures can only be good for maintaining public trust in our political system.
	The Bill also clarifies the importance of the role to be played by the regulator, the Electoral Commission. The commission will now have a clear duty to monitor spending and donation controls and to ensure their compliance with the law. We want to prevent our political
	system from becoming one in which unaccountable groups spend millions attempting to influence the outcome of an election. The Bill is an important step towards achieving that, without undermining the ability of third parties to engage more broadly in the political process.
	Let me now turn to part 3. Trade unions are influential participants in public life. They have an important role representing members’ interests both with specific employers and in wider public debate. The Government support that role. We also believe it is important that the public is confident that, when a union decides how to exercise its influence, all union members may choose to play a part. That is what the third part of the Bill is about. It will require trade unions visibly to demonstrate that they know who their members are and can contact them. The principle that unions must be able to contact their members is well established in legislation. We are building on an existing duty for unions to maintain an accurate and up-to-date register of members’ names and addresses.

Steve Brine: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Andrew Lansley: Is it specifically on part 3?

Steve Brine: Right on it.

Andrew Lansley: Very good. I will give way.

Steve Brine: It seems perfectly sensible to ask the unions to keep a register of their members, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no undue administrative burden on smaller trade unions as a result of the measures in his Bill?

Andrew Lansley: I am confident that the burden on trade unions will be very modest. As far as the certification officer is concerned, we are talking about only three additional members of staff as a consequence of all this. In future, unions will provide a membership audit certificate to the certification officer alongside their annual financial return. Unions with more than 10,000 members—this helps to answer my hon. Friend’s point about the smallest trade unions—will be required to appoint an independent third party, an assurer, to provide the certificate, which will state whether the union’s systems for maintaining the register meet the statutory requirements. That independent assurance will be important to provide confidence in large and complex membership records.
	It will be the responsibility of the certification officer to make inquiries and to appoint an inspector to investigate possible discrepancies, if there are circumstances suggesting that a union has not complied with those requirements. That will complement the existing responsibilities for investigating complaints made by individual members. We expect that in most cases the inspector will be a member of the certification officer's staff, but it could be an expert third party.
	The Bill sets out how assurers and appointed inspectors will be bound by duties of confidentiality in their handling of member data. Of course, existing safeguards in data protection and human rights legislation will apply in this case as they do elsewhere. Should the certification officer find a union to be non-compliant
	with these duties, he will make a declaration to that effect specifying where the union has failed to comply and the reasons for the declaration. In addition, he will be able to make a civil enforcement order, requiring the union to take steps to remedy the issue. However, prior to making a formal declaration and order, the certification officer will give the union an opportunity to make representations.
	This is not about making it harder for trade unions to operate. We are not requiring unions to collect more data or change the way in which they keep membership registers. Nor are we amending the requirements on industrial action ballots. The requirement to keep a list of member names and addresses is distinct from information that a union must supply to an employer when balloting for industrial action.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andrew Lansley: I really must complete the speech; I am sorry.
	Case law is now clear that minor or technical errors in such information are insufficient for a court to grant an injunction against industrial action. Furthermore, a statutory protection means that unions are only required to supply information to the employer that is in their possession at the time.
	We will, though, work with both unions and employers to develop comprehensive guidance about their rights and responsibilities as a result of the new regime. Furthermore, although larger unions will be required to appoint an assurer to provide the membership audit certificate, those either in their first year or with fewer than 10,000 members will be able to self-certify.
	I have heard the claim that these measures represent an intrusion into trade unions’ right to autonomy. Rules of operation will vary from one union to another. We are not interfering with that. Unions will continue to choose how they define a member, and we are deliberately not prescribing the processes that a union should adopt in their compilation and maintenance of member data. All we are doing is asking unions to provide an annual assurance that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that they know who their members are and how to contact them. I think members would be concerned if their unions felt unable to comply with that.
	These measures will provide an assurance that trade unions—increasingly large and diverse membership organisations—know who their members are and can effectively engage with them. These are reasonable requirements. The Bill does not go further and give trade union members the right to exercise a deliberate choice whether to participate in a trade union’s political fund or its subscription to party membership. I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to offer him the opportunity provided by the Bill to undertake exactly the deliberate choice that he said members of trade unions should enjoy, but 10 weeks after sending him that letter, I have had no response.
	The Bill, as I have shown, will do practical things to extend transparency and accountability in relation to third parties. Lobbyists, third parties and trade unions all play an important role in the political process, by
	helping to inform policy making and ensuring that views are heard by those who are in the Government, Parliament and beyond. That should continue, but we also want to prevent our political system from ending up as we see in other parts of the world, where unaccountable groups spend millions attempting to influence the political system. We want to be open, transparent and clear about who influences the political system, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Angela Eagle: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
	“this House affirms its belief in the need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry and in British politics, and considers that there should be a universal register of all professional lobbyists backed by a code of conduct and sanctions, clear rules on third party campaigning, and real reform to get the big money out of politics; but declines to give a Second Reading to the Transparency of Lobbying, Third Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill because the proposals on lobbying cover only a tiny minority of the industry and will make lobbying less transparent, and the proposals on third party campaigning amount to a gag on charities and campaigners who have a democratic right to participate in important debates in the run up to elections; and strongly believes that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by a full process of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with affected parties.
	This is one of the worst Bills that I have seen any Government produce in a very long time. The last Bill this bad might even have been the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the Leader of the House of Commons had his fingerprints all over that one, too. To be fair to him, he has found himself in a very difficult place. He has been landed with this risible and misconceived Bill and told to ram it through the Commons with unseemly haste in time for the next election.
	I am told that it is not a Bill with many champions in government, where a history of previous employment in the lobbying industry is common. Nothing wrong with that, we might say, but it has created a notable reluctance on the part of all sorts of Ministers to touch the Bill with a bargepole, and this afternoon we all understand why. They have looked at the ceiling; they have looked at the floor; they have muttered among themselves in the hope that they would not be chosen to pilot the Bill through the House. The Leader of the House has drawn the short straw, along with the ever-willing Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith).
	This is Bill is hurried, badly drafted and an agglomeration of the inadequate, the sinister and the partisan. From a Government who solemnly promised that they would fix our broken politics, the Bill will do the complete opposite.

Paul Flynn: Following the Government’s historic humiliation last Thursday, would it be beneficial to the House, the Government and the country if they spent the three weeks of recess studying the virtue of humility?

Angela Eagle: As always, my hon. Friend has good advice for the Conservative party.

Jim Cunningham: I notice that the Leader of the House kept avoiding certain people who wanted to intervene. More importantly,
	does my hon. Friend agree that we and many other people thought that the Bill would deal with the lobbying industry? We now find out that the voluntary sector and the trade unions are getting a hammering, but there is nothing about terms and conditions for shareholders and companies donating to political parties. Do she not think that we need some legislation there?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill can best be summed up as furious displacement activity by a Government who hope that the public will not notice their problems with lobbying.

Susan Elan Jones: Many of us are firmly against the Bill, and civil society seems united in that view. Does my hon. Friend not accept that one of the most disgraceful things is that the Government are not allowing witnesses from civil society? If the Government are so convinced of their case, why will they not allow witnesses in the Bill’s proceedings?

Angela Eagle: I certainly agree wholeheartedly that the Bill is being rushed in a very unseemly manner through the House.

Therese Coffey: Surely, the point of the Bill is to say that we have together in Parliament tried to reduce the cost of politics. This is about recognising and putting on the record third parties that want to spend money on promoting parties or candidates. It is right that that should be controlled in exactly the same way as it is for political parties.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady is right that we should control the cost of politics, but third parties spent only 10% of what political parties spent at the last election, so I wonder why there have been attempts in the Bill—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Angela Eagle: I will give way in due course when I have finished answering the point made by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Third-party campaigners spent 10% of what political parties spent. If we wanted to reform politics and get rid of the big money from politics, we should look at the cost of fighting election campaigns for political parties, too.

Jack Dromey: The National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter and Crisis have all said that those who speak out in future on either the housing crisis or the bedroom tax would be “extraordinarily at risk”. They want the ability to put all parties on the spot in the run-up to a general election. Why should they be constrained in doing so? Is this not an attempt by the Government to gag their critics?

Angela Eagle: The Government will have to do a lot more work to persuade the official Opposition and most of civil society that they have got the balance right.
	From a Government who solemnly promised that they would fix our broken politics, this Bill does the complete opposite. It is a sop to powerful vested interests, a sinister gag on democratic debate in the run-up to the general election and a shameful abuse of the legislative process to make cheap partisan points. This is a very
	bad Bill. It will let Lynton Crosby continue to advise the Prime Minister on tobacco policy. It will let big tobacco continue to target the Government, without requiring those interests to register at all, but it could stop an organisation like Cancer Research UK campaigning against them.

David Davis: The hon. Lady has used the phrase “excessive haste” twice in her speech so far, and with respect to part 2, I rather agree with her. Historically, constitutional and democratic measures have not been guillotined in the House. Does the Opposition intend to vote against the guillotine tonight?

Angela Eagle: Yes. We will vote against the timetable, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby, because one of the things that the Bill needs is more time for pre-legislative scrutiny and a closer look, so that we can get it right.

Margot James: Does the hon. Lady accept that the figure of 10% in relation to the expenditure committed by third-party organisations during elections would be greatly increased if staff costs were included, as the Bill seeks to do?

Angela Eagle: Yes, the hon. Lady is exactly right. I will come on to talk in detail about the worries about part 2 that are being widely expressed outside the House, and the Government would be wise to listen and consider some major amendments to the suggestions that they have put before us today—or, better, to delay the Bill, so that we can have proper pre-legislative scrutiny. This is not a transparency of lobbying Bill; it should be renamed the “Let Lynton Lobby” Bill. The Bill will make things worse and not better. It is a wasted opportunity for political reform, and the Government must go back to the drawing board.
	Before I look in detail at each part of the Bill, I shall comment on the way the Bill has been handled by the Government to date, because it is a perfect lesson in how not to legislate. Drafting it has been a process that goes against every principle that the right hon. Gentleman claims to have championed in his role as Leader of the House. The Bill was published out of the blue just two days before we rose for the summer recess and the August holiday season. If last week’s unexpected recall had not taken place, we would have found ourselves taking the Second Reading of the Bill on our second day back. We have only three sitting days until we begin the Committee stage on the Floor of the House on Monday next week.
	After three years of silence and prevarication on lobbying, it is important to ask why the Government are in such a sudden headlong rush. There is only one conclusion: they are trying to ram through their gag on charities and campaigners in clause 2 so that they are silenced in time for the next general election, and they are trying to avoid the scrutiny that will show the public what a disgrace the Bill is.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady will know that the public have great concerns about parliamentary patronage and how party placemen can end up in the House of
	Lords. Is she therefore disappointed that there are no provisions in the Bill that would cover scandals such as cash for honours?

Angela Eagle: I agree. The House of Lords must get its house in order and the Bill touches on none of the lobbying scandals that seemingly forced the Prime Minister’s hand before he suddenly decided to come up with the Bill at the end of June.

Barbara Keeley: The Leader of the House would not give way when he was speaking about part 2. There are some key issues for coalitions of charities. The shadow Leader of the House mentioned health issues such as smoking. There are big differences between the parties on some of these issues and there could be a chilling effect on a coalition of, say, health and social care organisations that was campaigning for the particular stance that one particular party might be advocating. Charities are worried today. We have talked to them this morning. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but they are worried. He has got it wrong.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. Lawyers who have looked at the changes that the Government are proposing to make in part 2 agree with the worries of the charitable sector. A mere assertion from those on the Government Benches that the measure does not mean what everybody else thinks it means will not be enough to reassure people on these matters.

Christopher Pincher: Although I have some nugatory sympathy for the concerns that have been raised around the House, does not the hon. Lady appreciate the irony that the Labour party, which introduced the current controls around controlled expenditure, appears to be getting hot under the collar at the prospect of large organisations which, although they may not be political parties, spend a large amount of money in specific constituencies for specific candidates being called into question? It looks as though she is concerned to keep controlled expenditure on the statute book, but uncontrolled expenditure in the constituencies.

Angela Eagle: As a member of the Government who put the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 on the statute book, I do not agree.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a strong case. She might not be aware that I was very involved in 2005, the general election year, in the Make Poverty History campaign, which lobbied and influenced Members and candidates across all parties in the House—very successfully, as many of us would agree. Does she share my fear that in the future such campaigns in an election year would not be able to go ahead or would be severely curtailed?

Angela Eagle: That is a real fear, which is supported by the briefing from the Electoral Commission to accompany Second Reading. These are the issues that we need to explore extremely carefully during the unfortunately extremely rushed Committee stage next week.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Angela Eagle: I am happy to give way, but I want to get on with my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has been trying to get in for a while and I shall let him do so.

Dennis Skinner: On part 2, my hon. Friend has got on to the question of spending money prior to an election. Is there not a connection between the National Union of Students campaigning on student fees after 2010, and the Lib Dems? Some people asked me, “Are the Lib Dems supporting this rubbish—this gagging Bill?” and I said yes. That is because of their fear of 2010, which they do not want repeated in the run-up to the next general election. What a political scandal!

Angela Eagle: As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on an extremely relevant point.
	The Leader of the House made much of his personal commitment to the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills, and I will be the first to praise him for that. However, his commitment is ringing pretty hollow now. The Government promised that there would be pre-legislative scrutiny on the lobbying proposals in part 1. In May 2012, when he was the Minister responsible, the present Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), told this House:
	“We are going to . . . publish our proposals and put them up for pre-legislative scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 22 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 972.]
	There has been none, and the Government have deliberately chosen to preclude it by taking the Bill so quickly and on the Floor of the House.
	Let us remind ourselves of what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is now the responsible Minister, told the House in April this year—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: I will give way in due course to the hon. Gentleman, but I am in full flow making a particular point. If he will let me finish it, I will come back to him.
	The current Minister in the Cabinet Office stated earlier this year:
	“Cabinet Office Ministers have had no meetings with interested parties on the Government's plans for a proposed statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1057W.]
	The hon. Lady appears to be completely unperturbed by her lack of consultation and engagement on these important matters.
	The Leader of the House has regularly praised the work of Select Committees since the Wright reforms were implemented, and claimed the credit for their increasing power and influence. Why, then, has he chosen to ignore the impressive piece of work on lobbying done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which his Government have had in their in-tray for nearly a year? We had an apology from the right hon. Gentleman today, but does he really think that a two-paragraph response from the Government after this Bill was published is the way his Government should treat a
	serious piece of work by a well-respected Select Committee? He can hardly be surprised that the Committee believes that the Government have shown
	“a lack of respect for Parliament and for the many people who contributed to our inquiry.”
	The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is so concerned about the Bill that it has been forced to hold emergency hearings during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Committee this morning. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), spoke for many in this House, I know, when he said last week that the proposals on lobbying in the Bill amount to a “dog’s breakfast”. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who I see in his place, immediately objected to the use of the term “dog’s breakfast” because in his words,
	“Far more thought has gone into pet nutrition than into this Bill.”
	As a Member whose constituency once contained a Spillers dog biscuit factory, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my own personal experience of pet nutrition that he is absolutely right.

Sarah Newton: rose—

Angela Eagle: Let me get on. I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
	The Standards and Privileges Committee is also worried, as the Chair of that august body told us today, about the implications for privilege and for the remit given to the Standards Commissioner, especially by the contents in schedule 1 and clauses 1 to 3, about which the Committee was not consulted. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised that with the Leader of the House. I look forward to the contributions of members of both of those distinguished Committees to our debate today, as I look forward to seeing any reports on these matters. I know that Members are working hard to produce them before we get to the Committee stage next week. We will all benefit from their expertise and opinions.
	I give way to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He has moved on. I give way to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton).

Sarah Newton: The hon. Lady is making a powerful criticism of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Will she share with us equal condemnation of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the 2009 Bill for which she claimed responsibility? There was no pre-legislative scrutiny of the Political Parties and Election Act 2009.

Angela Eagle: I do not know which Bill the hon. Lady refers to. The principle of pre-legislative scrutiny has been developing and we should continue to develop it. It is a principle that we on the Opposition Benches support.

Graham Allen: We can all swap stories about who did or did not do pre-legislative scrutiny, but let us have a principled view that it is wrong not pre-legislatively to scrutinise a Bill. The way to do that is to put it in our Standing Orders that normally—apart from emergencies, when the Speaker writes a warrant stating that, because
	we need to get something through fairly quickly, part of the process can be dispensed with—it will be standard practice to have pre-legislative scrutiny. Had we done so on this occasion, we would probably be in danger of arriving at a consensus on the Bill.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend takes every opportunity, with great eloquence, to further his views on how we should change the House’s procedures for the better.

Chris Bryant: Is not the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny that all too often it means we can iron out some of the unintended consequences? A classic one that I think we are likely to come across, in relation to part 1, is that when the Government or Parliament face a big issue many small charities decide to form a joint committee and employ someone specifically to act on their behalf and represent them. They would be caught by this Bill, whereas the bodies that they would probably be fighting against, the big commercial interests, would not. That is the unfairness.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is of course right. Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill came as a complete surprise to all those in civil society who will be affected, be they charities, campaigners or trade unions. The Government designed the changes in secret and sprung them on everyone in a baleful attempt to bounce them quickly on to the statute book. They have not even bothered to consult those affected. Discussions I have had during meetings with stakeholders on all three parts of the Bill suggest that time after time e-mails, letters and calls requesting conversations with Ministers were left unanswered. The Government did not even tell the Electoral Commission until the end of June that they were going to alter the rules that it is required by law to police, so they have kept their own regulator in the dark. The Electoral Commission has said:
	“We share the concerns that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee expressed… about the timing of the Bill and the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny.”
	I cannot believe that the Leader of the House is content with this shameful and shambolic process. He has provided an abject lesson in how not to develop and propose legislation. This is a Bill that he should be embarrassed to be associated with.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is giving an eloquent answer to the question of unintended consequences. Does she not also agree that in an era when we all need to look at how to increase political engagement and engagement in our democracy, particularly at election time, when people might want to challenge politicians, the Bill might do the very opposite by ending up with elections in which it is political parties that are talking to each other?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

Sammy Wilson: Could not some of the ambiguity and concern about part 2 of the Bill have been avoided by having proper pre-legislative scrutiny? For example, at what point would people campaigning against poor housing conditions cross the line between simply expressing their charity’s point of
	view and become involved in political activity? The Leader of the House was not clear today on where that line is.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right and reinforces the point, which we have heard from both sides of the House, that much more thought should have been given to the way the Bill was drafted.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend has made the fantastic point that a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny leads to unintended consequences. In my constituency, at the last election and since, a group called “HOPE not hate” has been doing fantastic campaigning work to ensure peace among the many races in Luton, including providing information about the backgrounds of the candidates standing for the far right in elections. How can it be right that they are restricted to just 2% of what, say, the British National party could spend in an election period?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. I do not think that it is right, without proper consultation, to seek to quash the kinds of activities that are political but not party political, especially during an election period.

John Mann: On the question of unintended consequences, has my hon. Friend had a chance to consider the complexities that the Bill would create for the Conservative party? The fact is that full-time employees are involved in creating donors’ clubs, and money from them goes from one constituency to another, meaning that every single Conservative association will be embroiled in an incredible amount of bureaucracy, with me monitoring every bit of their expenditure.

Angela Eagle: They should be afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker—very afraid.
	I now want to look at each part of the Bill in turn, beginning with the part on lobbying. The Leader of the House attempted to keep a straight face when he claimed that the proposals will make the lobbying industry more transparent, but I am not sure that even he believes it—almost no one else does. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that does not even capture Lynton Crosby. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that would allow a lobbyist lobbying an MP about the lobbying Bill to escape the requirement to sign its proposed register.
	Three and a half years ago the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, told us that lobbying was
	“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
	He did not tell us then that he was going to do nothing about it for over three years but survive a series of lobbying scandals and then produce a Bill so flawed that it would actually make things worse.
	I have two key points to make about the proposals on lobbying set out in part 1. The first relates to the laughably narrow definition of “consultant lobbyist”. Under the Government’s definition, someone will count as a lobbyist only if they lobby directly Ministers or
	permanent secretaries and if their business is mainly for the purposes of lobbying. It is estimated that that will cover less than one fifth of those people currently working in the £2 billion lobbying industry, and the Association of Professional Political Consultants estimates that only 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists would be covered. Moreover, it would be extremely easy to rearrange how such lobbying is conducted to evade the need to appear on the new register at all. The Bill is so narrow that it would fail to cover not only the lobbyist currently barnacle-scraping at the heart of No.10, but any of the lobbying scandals that have beset the Prime Minister in this Parliament.
	My second point is that there is a real risk that the proposals will make lobbying less transparent than it is now. The Government’s proposed register would cover fewer lobbyists than the existing voluntary register run by the UK Public Affairs Council.

Charles Walker: Is not the truth that far too many organisations are wasting their members’ money on hiring professional lobbyists and that their chief executives and principles would be far better advised to communicate directly with Members of Parliament, rather than farming that out to third-party organisations?

Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the Government had better get right all the issues of privilege, because otherwise MPs might end up having to be registered as lobbyists, which would be completely ridiculous.
	The Bill also does not propose any code of conduct for lobbyists, which is a step backwards from the various voluntary registers that already govern parts of the industry. The Bill is so bad that it has achieved the unique feat of uniting both transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry against it. The Association of Professional Political Consultants spoke for them all when it told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that it sees
	“a very real risk that the overall effect will be to reduce transparency”.
	The Opposition firmly believe that we need greater transparency in lobbying, not less. We will table a number of amendments to the Bill to bring in a universal register of all professional lobbyists, with a code of conduct backed by effective sanctions. We will also table amendments to close the revolving door between ministerial jobs and the private sector, and we will close the loophole that allows Lynton Crosby to be at the heart of No. 10 and yet to evade accountability and avoid publishing his client list.

Andy Sawford: This morning I met representatives of Anti-Slavery International and we planned a campaign together. They are not my constituents but we aim to involve trade unions in the campaign, representing working people. All three parts of the campaign are threatened by parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill, yet Lynton Crosby’s activities are not touched by it. Is that not wrong?

Angela Eagle: It is plain wrong, and that is part of our criticism of the Bill.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Lady makes a very compelling case. A moment ago she spoke about transparency. Does she agree that that should include financial transparency so that we can see a genuine, good-faith estimate of how much money has been spent on lobbying activities and thus compare what the large multinational corporations are spending versus non-profit organisations?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady makes another good point. We have to see what the size and value is as well as the fact that there have been meetings.
	Part 2 covers third-party campaigning in the run-up to an election. All hon. Members will remember how the Prime Minister used to evangelise about the big society, but in one of the most sinister bits of legislation that I have seen in some time, this Bill twists the rules on third-party campaigning to scare charities and campaigners away from speaking out. It is an assault on the big society that the Prime Minister once claimed to revere. I say this because part 2 broadens significantly what activities will be caught by the phrase “election campaign”. That is set out in detail in new schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	Part 2 creates in clause 26 a new and extremely wide definition of “electoral purposes”. It is clear that these changes will have wide-ranging implications for many hundreds of charities and campaigners local and national, large and small. Some of them have told us that they will have to pull back from almost all engagement in debates on public policy in the year before the election. These changes have created massive uncertainty for those who may fall within the regulations in a way that the Electoral Commission has deplored. The changes will mean that third-party campaigning will be restricted even if it was not intended to affect the outcome of an election—for example, engaging in public policy debate. Staff costs and overheads will also have to be included in what has to be declared—something that does not apply in this way to political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that these changes could have a “dampening effect” on public debate. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said that the changes will
	“have the result of muting charities and groups of all sorts and sizes on the issues that matter most to them and the people that they support.”
	38 Degrees has said that the changes will
	“have a chilling effect on British democracy”.

Angie Bray: That is a lobbying group.

Angela Eagle: Conservative Members might not like the causes that 38 Degrees takes up, but surely we live in a free society and it has the right to do so. The hon. Lady has rather betrayed some of the partisan motivation that lies behind this Bill. Since she does not like 38 Degrees, perhaps she will listen to the TaxPayers Alliance, which has said:
	“The bill is a serious threat to independent politics that will stifle free and open democratic debate.”
	Yesterday even Owen Jones and “Guido Fawkes” were agreeing that this Bill is “undemocratic”, so the Government have managed to cause some unlikely coalitions, of which that is probably the most unlikely.
	We must be under no illusion: if these rules pass into law unamended they will seriously undermine free and fair democratic debate in the run-up to the next election. Blogs may well be regulated and stifled too. The changes in part 2 have met with universal opposition. Even “ConservativeHome” and “Liberal Democrat Voice” have joined “LabourList” in publishing highly critical pieces condemning their own Government’s clampdown on free speech.

Angie Bray: I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that it is perfectly reasonable to describe 38 Degrees as a lobbying outfit. That is what it calls itself; it comprises lobbyists. I have been lobbied by it on many different occasions. Unless she is saying that to call somebody a lobbyist is somehow an insult, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to call it a lobbying organisation.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady needs to look at her own Government’s Bill to see that it defines 38 Degrees not as a lobbying organisation but as a third-party organisation, and the Bill attempts to gag the ability of third-party organisations to make points on policy and politics during an election campaign.

Stephen Doughty: In my time at Oxfam I had to take numerous pieces of advice on staying within the law in terms of campaigning. Charities take these things very seriously. At Oxfam I had the benefit of a legal department to go to for advice. Many smaller charities do not have that benefit, and it will be very difficult for them to interpret this dog’s breakfast of a Bill. That will result in them curtailing their activities.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Part of the effect of this Bill, if unamended, will be to chill, damp down and frighten people who might otherwise campaign because they will be threatened with the criminal law if they get anything wrong.

Charles Walker: I do not have a huge amount of time for 38 Degrees, but I am not going to address my concerns about that organisation. In the run-up to the general election, Mind and Rethink, two charities with which I am closely involved, want to set out a number of challenges for the main political parties. Does the hon. Lady feel that that will be caught by the Bill?

Angela Eagle: It is beholden on the Government to demonstrate that it will not, given that they have widened the meaning of the term “political purposes” and cut the amount of money that can be spent before it is necessary to register; that part of the Bill deals with coalitions and how they account for the cost of what they are doing; and that they have inserted some extremely uncertain definitions of “electoral purposes”. I do not want to get into a Committee-stage debate, but the Government cannot simply declaim that nothing has changed when they have changed, broadened and widened definitions and cut the amount of money that can be spent lawfully during an election period.

Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that in addition to the restrictions she has described, the effect of the Electoral Commission having to police these very vague arrangements and possibly introduce sanctions after an election means
	that self-censorship will be the order of the day, particularly for a large number of smaller organisations, given that sanctions may be taken against them possibly a year, two years or three years after the process has taken place?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the chilling and dampening effect on the vibrancy of our democracy of this Government’s approach.
	I thought at first that the Government might just have made a mess of the drafting—after all, they often do that and this Bill is certainly a mess—but it seems from the Cabinet Office response and from what the Leader of the House said today that they have deliberately set out to gag critical third-party voices. They have had repeated opportunities to address the concerns put to them by charities and campaigners, but they have dismissed them. This leaves me with the only conclusion that we can draw—that this is a deliberate and cynical attempt by the Government to insulate their policies and their record from scrutiny in the run up to the 2015 general election. Part 2 is totally unacceptable in its current form and it must be changed.
	The Leader of the House tried to justify these draconian measures by arguing that they tackle the problem of third-party spending in politics, but he completely misses the point. Third parties spent less than 10% of the money spent by political parties in the last election. We all know that one of the biggest problems in our democracy today is the election expenditure arms race between political parties, not the expenditure of third parties. That is what drives the search for big-money donors. This Bill was a chance to tackle the big money in our politics, and the Government have completely squandered it.
	This Government are happy to be financed by donors who pay huge sums to come for dodgy dinners in Downing street. They are a Government so shameless in their search for big-party donations that they were happy to split between the two coalition parties the proceeds of the late Joan Edwards’ half-a-million-pounds of life savings, which she had generously bequeathed to the nation in her will. Their squalid behaviour is left unaffected by this Bill; instead, it seeks to silence legitimate third-party campaigning organisations.

Fiona O'Donnell: Has my hon. Friend had any indication that the Government have considered the impact on third-party organisations wishing to speak out in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish independence, which will fall within the 12-month period?

Angela Eagle: Again, I am afraid there is very little evidence I can give my hon. Friend that the Government have considered in any serious way the impact of anything, since they consulted nobody before they came up with these proposals.
	Finally, I want to comment on part 3, which centres on trade union membership records. There appears to be no policy motive for the introduction of this new law other than as a vehicle for cheap, partisan attacks on the trade unions, of which only a minority are actually affiliated to the Labour party.

Tom Clarke: Did my hon. Friend notice that when the Leader of the House spoke about trade unionism he absolutely refused to give way? Is that an indication of an attack on democracy? Many a democracy has failed after that very type of attack on the trade union movement. I am a member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that trade unionists are not obscure, abstract people? The people who have inundated me and other Members with correspondence are cleaners, teachers, engineers, bus drivers and firefighters, and they, in a democracy, are entitled to be heard.

Angela Eagle: I agree wholeheartedly.
	Officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been totally unable to explain the problem that this part of the Bill is designed to solve. During a belated consultation meeting with the TUC—it took place after the Bill had been published—BIS officials could cast no light on why part 3 exists at all. Nor were they able to explain the origin of these proposals beyond their oft-repeated mantra that the provisions contained in part 3
	“came out of a high level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister”.
	I think that revelation tells us all we need to know about the grubby, partisan nature of the measures.

Gavin Shuker: Did we not hear from the Leader of the House that his motivation for introducing these measures is to help the trade unions keep better records? It strikes me as odd that we know how many members the Labour party, the Liberal Democrat party and the trade unions have, but that, when asked to reveal its membership numbers, the Conservative party answers, “We can’t do that, because our records are too bad.”

Angela Eagle: I am rather sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he has just ruined one of my lines from later in my speech. Great minds think alike.
	These proposals seem deliberately designed to burden trade unions with additional cost and bureaucracy from a Government who claim they are against red tape. This is despite the fact that unions already have a statutory duty to maintain registers of members. I understand from the TUC that neither the certification officer nor ACAS has made any representations to suggest that that was not already sufficient. The Government have to date failed to provide any evidence or rationale for these changes, so I can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to hamper unions with red tape because a minority of them have the temerity to support the Labour party.
	I have serious concerns about the implications of these changes for the security of membership data. We all know that the blacklisting of trade union members may well still exist in our country. Blacklisting has ruined many lives and these changes could have some very dangerous implications, especially in the construction industry, where many are afraid to declare their membership of a trade union openly for fear of the repercussions.

Hywel Francis: I am Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has not had the opportunity to discuss this matter because of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. The fundamental
	human rights of association and privacy have been raised with us by the TUC. Does my hon. Friend agree that my Committee should have had the opportunity to scrutinise this Bill before it came to the Floor of the House?

Angela Eagle: Once more, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is the third Committee that the Government have managed to ignore or insult with the production of this appallingly, rapidly constructed Bill. I hope they will reconsider the Bill and think about delaying its passage so that parliamentary Committees, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, can do the job the House asks of them on suggested Government legislation.
	I hope that the Government will respond next week to our amendments on issues of confidentiality and give the assurances we seek in these important areas.
	The Government have arbitrarily singled out trade unions for this attack but have given no reason why other membership organisations should not be covered by these costly and disruptive requirements. It is beyond irony, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has pointed out, to be lectured by the Conservative party on how to ensure that membership data are accurate when it will not even confirm how many members it has left. Perhaps it should be forced by law to appoint a highly remunerated assessor who can get to the truth of it for all of us. This is another in a long list of anti-employee proposals from a Government who always seem to want to make it easier to fire rather than hire workers and to weaken rather than strengthen their security at work. We will table a range of amendments to this part of the Bill to address concerns.
	I also want to say this to the Government: we are proud of our direct link to millions of working people up and down this country and we believe in the right of working people to organise and stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace. Free trade unions are part of a free and vibrant society, and the partisan use of the law in an attempt to disrupt their efficient administration is yet another sinister aspect of this appalling Bill.
	This is a bad Bill that will make things worse, not better. It makes lobbying less transparent and it places a sinister gag on charities and campaigners who want to make legitimate contributions to our democratic debate. It is a Bill that the Government should be ashamed of. It is incompetent. It is rushed. It has been developed in a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and his deputy, but with no other consultation. It is a sop to vested interests, an illiberal attack on democratic debate and involvement, and a cheap, partisan and cynical misuse of the legislative process for the Government’s own ends. We will vote against it and I urge Government Members to join us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind Members that there is a 10-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions, starting from the next speaker. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate and I put them on notice that it may be necessary to reduce the time limit later this evening in order to ensure that everybody is able to participate.

John Thurso: I rise to broadly support the Bill and to urge my colleagues to resist the amendment tabled by the Opposition. I do so with some reservations, which I will come to in the course of my remarks.
	I begin by picking up the point that has been made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members about pre-legislative scrutiny. I have always been in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. I think virtually every Bill is improved by it, although this time last year—or maybe the year before; how time flies—I had the rather sad experience of serving on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill, and look where that got us. Nevertheless, I have to say that pre-legislative scrutiny and proper scrutiny of legislation is the best way to defuse potential misunderstandings and to come to the true nature of what is being proposed.
	The reason why I think the House should support this Bill’s Second Reading is that I truly believe it is a step forward, although it is not entirely the step forward it could be. I believe there are a number of misunderstandings, and that has certainly been true of some of today’s interventions. I think that pre-legislative scrutiny would have provided the opportunity to address them such that they might have been dealt with and we might have had clarity prior to proceedings. Although this is by no means a perfect Bill—what Bill ever is?—it is a reasonable start in the direction of transparency on lobbying. Therefore, I prefer to vote for it and then, I hope, see changes made during its consideration in Committee, rather than vote against it at this stage.

Roger Williams: A large amount of time has been provided to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House, but does my hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny is important and that a large amount of time in Committee and on Report does not make up for the lack of it?

John Thurso: My hon. Friend is correct. That is exactly the point that I was making. Those are two different processes that arrive at different conclusions. However, we are where we are. I regret that we have not had pre-legislative scrutiny, but we will have three days in Committee and two days on consideration. I hope that we use that time wisely to explore all the issues before us.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman’s concern over the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny will have been heard on both sides of the House. Given that lack of scrutiny, will he join us in the Lobby to vote down the programme motion and to provide a more adequate amount of time to debate the Bill on the Floor of the House?

John Thurso: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I will not do that because it would not introduce pre-legislative scrutiny. There are three days to debate the Bill in Committee. There are some important big issues, but not a huge number of them, so we will probably have enough time to debate them in the days that are available.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso: I am terribly sorry, but we are time limited and two interventions is our lot. I am afraid that that is it for the time being, unless I get ahead of myself, which is always possible.
	In the Bill, we are trying to introduce more transparency into areas that, by common consent on both sides of the House, require transparency. We are therefore required to act. We are looking to shed light on the hidden influence of big business, big money and big power.
	I want to make it absolutely clear, as I did in the Opposition debate some 10 weeks ago, that lobbying is a good and integral part of the political process. When somebody comes to lobby me because they are my constituent or because I sit on a certain Committee, I consider that to be an important part of how I inform myself so that I may take reasonable decisions, ask good questions in Committees or act in the interests of my constituents. I would be very concerned if I felt that anything stood in the way of my doing that on behalf of my constituents or with regard to my work on a Committee. As far as I can see, nothing in the Bill will do that. I understand that some Opposition Members feel differently, but I believe that those issues can be worked out during the passage of the Bill.
	We are proposing something relatively small and light touch. I would describe it as a good start. When an independent lobbyist—a company that lobbies for profit and is not associated with a particular company—is lobbying in a relatively secretive way and has the power to influence what is happening in our lives, it is right that those people should be registered and that we should be aware of what they are seeking to do. The Bill will not do that entirely, but it will not do anything that stops that from happening. It is a building block that may be built on.
	Part 1 of the Bill provides for a statutory register of lobbyists, which was in our manifesto and the coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that to be implemented. I am therefore delighted that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is involved in introducing the Bill. The register is something that we very much wanted to see. It is deliberately light touch and deals with an existing gap in the transparency arrangements for communication between third-party lobbyists and Ministers.
	The coalition is the first Government to publish quarterly data on ministerial meetings. In that way, some sunlight that has never before shone on such ministerial activities has shone on them and we have more idea of what is going on. That could be improved and done a little more timeously, and some of the detail could be expanded on. It is not overly helpful to have a series of entries that say “general discussion” or whatever the term might be. It is very much a work in progress. However, I certainly would not wish to criticise the Government for starting something that we have never had before, even if I think that it could be improved. It is an important step forward.
	The inclusion of third-party lobbyists means that we will be able to ascertain on behalf of which firm lobbying is taking place. That will fill a degree of the gap.

Duncan Hames: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Thurso: If it is quick.

Duncan Hames: On that point, when a registered lobbyist has a large number of clients, does my hon. Friend believe that the introduction of registration will enable the public to determine for which client they were lobbying in any given meeting with a Minister?

John Thurso: I am not entirely certain of the answer to that question, but I hope that will be the case. Perhaps when the Deputy Leader of the House responds, he might reply to that question.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso: I am terribly sorry, but that clock is a tough master.
	Much of today’s contention has been about part 2. I believe that it is positive that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in. It is obvious that such activity is moving away from traditional political parties and into third-party organisations. However, when campaigning is of a political nature, it is right that it should be controlled properly. That is an accepted principle in the current legislation, to which the Bill proposes amendments.
	My understanding of the purpose of part 2 is that somebody who seeks to affect the outcome of the election—that is, a particular candidate or party will benefit from their actions—will be controlled. If, on the other hand, they offer policies to all parties in the hope that they will be taken up, they will not be included. Very basically, I understand that to be the core of what we are doing.

Thomas Docherty: That is not the case.

John Thurso: I believe that that is what the Bill sets out to do. That is an appropriate and good measure to take. If I am wrong, the way to flush that out is to table amendments in Committee.
	I heard, as hon. Members across the House will have heard, the assurance that was given by the Leader of the House on that point. He stated clearly what the objective was and gave the commitment that if, for any reason, that objective was not met by the Bill as currently drafted, he would accept amendments or seek to make amendments to achieve the objective. There is good will on the part of Ministers to deal with something that is an appropriate addition to the legislation.
	Under the current regulatory regime, third parties can spend a considerable amount of money. In the 2010 election, 25 third parties spent £3 million. I believe that the reduction that we are making and the fact that it will not be possible to target funds into one constituency are rather important. I was most taken by the intervention by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I am with him, as I always am. He and I make common cause on many matters. There are a number of organisations that will be controlled that both he and I would like to see controlled. A foreign tycoon who funds a third party that sets out to spend a fortune in one constituency will be dealt with in the Bill.

David Lammy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso: I will not, I am afraid.
	Such examples would not have been dealt with before. That is an important step forward. I accept that there might be details that do not accord with the principle that has been set out, but we can flush those out in Committee and in later stages.
	Part 3, which seeks to establish transparency in the membership numbers of trade unions, is important. There was a well-made point towards the end of the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, which I will not follow up. Frankly, it is a pretty good principle and one that we should follow.
	In conclusion, this is not a perfect Bill, but it responds in a measured way to a need that is evident and clear. It is a start and will, in all probability, be built on in the future. I seriously urge the House to vote for Second Reading and to decline the amendment so that we can at least have that debate.

Graham Allen: I have the great privilege of being Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, elected by Members of the whole House—not put on by the Whips or anybody else—to speak on behalf of Members throughout the House and try to give them a service in that policy field. Despite not having received great co-operation from the Government, we intend to fulfil that service, and on Thursday morning we will equip every Member of the House with a full set of the evidence we have received since putting out a call for evidence when we were told this Bill was coming. In addition to our report, we will also propose on an all-party basis a series of amendments to make the Bill workable.
	We are doing that because—amazingly—if we want a lobbying Bill, it is possible to build one across the House. One has to work pretty hard to get Spinwatch on the one hand, and lobbying associations on the other, to come together and say, “We can do this,” but we have interviewed as witnesses people from those organisations and they have told us that by working with a special Committee of the House for several months we can produce a Bill to address the issues about which we are all concerned. That is partly the problem. I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that the next big scandal may well be lobbying, so let us get in there now, sort it out and be pre-emptive. I am afraid, however, that the Bill does not tackle that problem.
	I agree with the coalition parties and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who pulled together the coalition agreement and said, “We should have something on the statute book about lobbying.” We are trying to fall out when it is easier to agree, and my Committee will produce the basis on which such agreement can happen, whether or not it is taken up.

Lady Hermon: May I make a suggestion for one of the amendments to be considered by the hon. Gentleman’s Committee? It relates to the “independence” of the registrar. The Leader of the House mentioned that word at least twice. I may need to go to Specsavers, but I have read the Bill and I cannot find a guarantee of the independence of the registrar.

Graham Allen: That is certainly one of the issues on which we have taken evidence, including this morning, and we will come forward with proposals that will reassure the hon. Lady. Whether those proposals find favour across the House now the tramlines are set, rather than having a special Committee that could have attempted to reach consensus, is another matter. Fundamentally, however, there is another big-picture problem because this issue is not just about the House and how it does its business, but about the public.
	The public wanted a Bill on lobbying not because of some finesse about 1% of lobbyists or a couple of categories —Ministers and permanent secretaries—of people who are lobbied. The public wanted a Bill because they felt that we did not have the credibility, or the political classes the ability, to produce something that would tackle the scandals that appear in our newspapers and on our television. Nothing in this Bill addresses that concern: “You lot in Parliament, once again you’ve ducked it. You have avoided the big issues.” We have heard cases involving all parties—this is not a partisan point—but not one of those issues is addressed by the Bill. People watching our debates at home will say, “There they go again. There is an esoteric little thing about a few details, and the only thing we know is that they are attacking our charities.” I do not say whether that is right or wrong, but that is the impression the public are being given by our inability to create an effective lobbying Bill.
	Briefly, if someone wanted to do O-level politics on how to produce or not to produce a Bill, I am sorry, but this Bill would be an F—a fail, big time. Unfortunately, they need to have people on their side—political parties where there could be consensus, the big society, charities, the voluntary sector. Read the evidence from the Electoral Commission when I publish it in 48 hours’ time. It is damning evidence from people who should really all be on the same side to ensure this provision will happen. We should listen to people. Let us have some consultation; let Parliament do its job, smoke out some of the issues and attempt to resolve them. I have a fantastic all-party Committee and we could do that job for Parliament, yet those things have been resolutely held at arm’s length. Perversely, we are trying to make a Bill that divides rather than keeps people together.

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the real—the biggest—lobbying scandal is that of big business with in-house lobbying divisions having a disproportionate impact on policy as a result of privileged relationships with Government Departments? That is what needs to be addressed.

Graham Allen: Yes indeed, and it is not addressed. Neither is it easy to address. By combining their wit and capability, however, 650 Members of Parliament could design the amendments to make this Bill work, if Members in all parts of the House are prepared, for once, to rise above the dogfight and accept some of them. I wish we were not discussing this Bill now and that it was in a special Committee. However it is not, but there will be possibilities on an all-party basis for Members to try and make it work, and I will mention a couple of them.
	I say gently to my very good Friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that it is no good attacking the Government
	for not having pre-legislative scrutiny, and for the Opposition not then to say that we will have such scrutiny as of right and as in normal process, so that in future, when the Labour party sits on the other side of the House, our Bills will command much wider support and not come back. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who I have known for many years, that it is not about just getting the ball rolling. This is an opportunity to do the job well, and it is perfectly within our ability to do that.
	As we know, there are three main sections to the Bill. All I will say about the lobbying Bill—I will speak if I am called as the Committee stage progresses—is that it is very limited, not what we expected and, even more importantly, not what the public expect of us. We will seek to redefine issues such as those concerning who is lobbied. People who lobby the civil service do not go to the permanent secretary but talk to the desk officer or the director general. Those people are outwith the concept of the Bill. Let us also redefine who the lobbyists are. At the moment, estimates vary that between 1% and 5% of lobbyists will be caught by the Bill. Surely nobody out there will accept that as the basis of a lobbying Bill.
	I have a pertinent and specific question for all Members of the House about their role and function as lobbyists. I hope we are the best lobbyists that can be found, particularly on behalf of our constituents. However, we should tread in that area carefully because as soon as we start putting the rights of Members of Parliament in statute per se, we allow justiciability to take place and people to say, “You did or you didn’t perform under your legislative duties.” That could have severe consequences, and we must explore that in great detail in Committee.
	On part 2 of the Bill, one of the most wonderful parts of my life experience as a Member of Parliament is when we come towards a general election, and all those different bodies start to get hold of us, lobby us, knock on our doors, phone us and send letters—“Come to our meeting. You will not get our vote unless we know exactly what you are doing on this.” Someone on the opposite side then says exactly the same thing: “What do you do? How do you think those issues through? Let’s understand those issues.” That is the lifeblood and rich diversity of our democracy, and we should be doing everything we can to improve and increase it, not to diminish and cast a shadow over it.
	I do not believe for a moment that the Leader of the House is trying to chill the voluntary and charitable sectors. However, in this case, I speak as a trustee of a charity. I will not put the money in that charity, which is for doing great things for kids, at risk. I will not authorise anything that even remotely possibly could risk that money—we are not sure what the Government mean or what they are trying to do. I will not do that, which dampens and inadvertently chills.

David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Allen: I must press on—I am sorry that I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
	Who are we trying to constrain? I shall tell the House of just a few organisations that have sent evidence to my Committee. They include fringe organisations such as
	Citizens Advice, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Royal British Legion and Oxfam. Those organisations have written to the Committee in the past week or so. Others include the Voluntary Sector North West, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Roald Dahl’s Marvellous Children’s Charity, the British Youth Council, the National Trust, the Women’s Support Network, Christian Aid, the Stroke Association, Girlguiding and—this is the real hardcore—the Woodland Trust. Mencap and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have also written to the Committee. Surely we intend to make those organisations believe they have an increasing rather than a diminishing part in our democracy.
	I ask the Government to think again and to do so seriously. The Committee will propose amendments on redefining terms. A number of colleagues have asked what the Government mean by “electoral purposes”. What does that capture? We want to give people reassurance on that.
	The Committee has taken evidence from the Electoral Commission. The last thing the Electoral Commission wants is to be given responsibility for the measures and to be made the judge. It wants clarity and to remain impartial. It does not want to be drawn into arguments on freedom of speech. It does not want to be the arbiter of what is or is not quasi-political and of what is perfectly legitimate.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Allen: I am sorry—I have only one minute left, so I must press on.
	I made a point briefly—I will not make it at length—about expenditure on campaigning. If that expenditure must also include staffing and a number of other things—material costs and so on—that it did not previously include, the pot for actual campaigning for charities and other organisations is diminished. We need to be clear about that but, having briefly studied it, I am not clear. Friends who have lobbied me, the Leader of the House and others are also not clear. If we make them risk-averse, we will diminish our democracy, not improve it.
	We need to look again at part 3. I am mystified as to why trade unions would not know where their members are—their lifeblood is ensuring they know where their members are because their members pay the subs and the wages and keep those organisations going. They have to know who their members are for industrial relations ballots, so it is in their interests to keep those records up to date.

Anne Main: I rise to support the Bill on Second Reading. As many colleagues have said, some measures need more scrutiny in Committee of the Whole House and some need tightening.
	I should like to draw the Leader of the House’s attention to one element of the Bill so that he can think about it as an area to explore in Committee. Inappropriate lobbying is a pertinent issue. I welcome the Government’s bid to clean up that murky pool and to shine a light on some of the movers and shakers behind the scenes. That is where much of the public’s concern lies. Who is gaining access behind the scenes through special relationships?
	I congratulate the Government on starting the process by publishing details of departmental meetings quarterly, although they could be made fuller. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that “broad discussions” does not tell us who is lobbying on behalf of whom. Hon. Members need to know how influence is gained, where it is gained, how deals are done and who is pushing a pet project, particularly with reference to our constituencies.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Main: I will give way only briefly because many colleagues wish to speak in the debate.

Debbie Abrahams: What does the hon. Lady make of the statistic that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills held 988 meetings with lobbyists in 2012, of which only two would be eligible for inclusion on the register? Does that not make a mockery of the Bill?

Anne Main: The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. The House is where we raise such concerns. I am sure that those things will be taken into account in Committee, and in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report. The debate is not about playing ping-pong with blame; it is about drawing such matters into the public domain. Perhaps that area will be tightened up. I am hopeful that it will be.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Main: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. I have read only about a paragraph of my speech. Many Opposition Members wish to speak, so I am sure she will have an opportunity to intervene.
	Hon. Members are the voices of their constituencies. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made exactly that point when he said that we are the strongest lobbyists. If something is not right in our constituencies, we speak up for our constituents. It is up to us to ferret behind the scenes and find out what is going on. We need to be aware of how lobbyists play and by whose rules, and the extent of their schmoozing.
	I want to point out a worrying grey area that is not covered in the Bill but that could be captured as we work on the Bill in the next few days. I have been trying to track the influence of lobbyists on a major project in St Albans. I have made no bones about the fact that I am completely and implacably opposed, as is my council at every level, to a strategic rail freight interchange on 300 acres of green-belt land. I am concerned that lobbying behind the scenes may have led to a shift in the decision-making process, and have made every effort to try to find out how hon. Members, as representatives of our constituents, can find out who or what has gained the ear of influential people. I fully accept that that does not always mean the Minister—it could be someone in the Minister’s office. Members need to have a clearly defined route to find out what has gone on. Our constituents do not have that opportunity.
	The project has been led by Helioslough. One of its key lobbyists is Mr Simon Hoare, who operates under various guises—it is therefore pertinent that we have a full register. We have been fighting the proposal since 2006. It has been turned down twice—once by the previous
	Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and once by the current one. There have been two refusals, but now there is a minded-to-approve decision, which has set off my radar. What has altered? The plans are the same, so has pressure been applied behind the scenes?
	The last refusal was quashed by the High Court in 2011, and the process has become murky and opaque—it is very much the sort of thing that I believe the public want hon. Members to clamp down on. In this world, personal connections and relationships can come in very handy. I have dug very deep to try to get to the bottom of how much access the developer of the rail freight proposal has gained via his lobbyists. The proposal has implications for planning and transport, and for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Not only one Department is involved, but many.
	Like many colleagues who have concerns about the undue effects of lobbying, I asked a series of parliamentary questions—that is one route, albeit a tortuous one, open to hon. Members—and, ultimately, made freedom of information requests. I discovered in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), the then Transport Minister, admitted to having had a private luncheon meeting with the lead lobbyist for Helioslough, the developer, just after the refusal—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if Opposition Members listened to what I have to say. I am making the point that the Bill will not capture those private, personal connections over lunch, where things are discussed.
	I found out that the matter was discussed over lunch in a private, personal capacity with the Minister. Since then, I have been chasing those private comments to see what they have led to. My right hon. Friend has also admitted that, since that meeting, her Department received an e-mail from Simon Hoare entitled “Radlett SRFI—The economic benefits”. Simon Hoare was tirelessly making his case behind the scenes, despite the fact that the process was closed to me and my constituents.
	I submitted freedom of information requests, because the role of all Back-Bench MPs is to speak up and defend our constituents against what I would describe as inappropriate lobbying. I have the contents of the e-mails and an attached document. I also have the Department for Transport letter to Mr Hoare informing him that the e-mails were about to be disclosed. When Mr Hoare received notice that his e-mails and private correspondence were about to be disclosed, he sent an attachment, saying:
	“I would prefer for my email not to be sent to the MPs”.
	I am sure he would prefer that. Unfortunately for him, the Department disclosed his e-mail, which makes for disturbing reading. Among a lot of other things, it states:
	“I am aware the DfT is a strong supporter of the development of rail freight”
	and
	“will also doubtless be aware”
	of
	“a number of schemes…In the last 10 years my client has incurred costs over £12 million”
	on that planning application. The letter goes on:
	“I do not believe that DCLG has a clue as to the costs of the planning process…While appreciating that DCLG is a quasi
	judicial role vis à vis the Public Inquiry, anything your department can do to press the case for a speedy and supportive decision would be a real shot in the arm…As a courtesy, I ought to advise you that we are also in contact with HMT…and…BIS.”
	I would not have known that without a freedom of information request. It goes on to say a lot more, but my time is constrained.
	This is what we have to clamp down on. I am sure that this is sounding very unhelpful, but at least this Government are tackling it—Interruption] They have an opportunity to tackle it through the Bill. Sadly, such private meetings will not be covered by the current proposed legislation—that is the point I am making. I am sure that the Minister would like to know that I have asked the Library about this matter. It has confirmed that this is still a grey area, even with the introduction of the Bill: it will be up to Ministers to decide whether they feel that they have been influenced over lunch and a good glass of wine.
	I give the Department for Transport some credit for letting me see the information trail. So far, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has not let me see anything, saying that it did receive documents and correspondence but that letting me know all about it would involve a disproportionate cost. Well, one Department can let me know and I do not like what I read—it stinks. Something has changed a decision affecting my constituency. Somebody beat up somebody in some Department somewhere and said, “Make this thing happen, please”. I know we have an economic imperative to get Britain moving, but not by building an inappropriately located rail freight interchange.
	I have asked parliamentary questions and I am dissatisfied with the level of response. My freedom of information requests have been rather more fruitful, but at what cost? The paper trail involved in trying to get to the evidence is not without cost to the taxpayer. I have gone to the Information Commissioner for adjudication on the rather opaque way that this matter has been dealt with. As the duly elected representative of my entire constituency, I represent everybody, as we all do in our constituencies, not just Conservatives. If this decision is imposed on them, they have a right to know that any lobbying has been transparent. I am not anti-lobbying—I lobby like crazy on behalf of my constituents—but I want to know who has had cosy lunches and I want to know if quiet conversations behind closed doors have effected changes of mind. I want to know, on behalf of my constituents, whether lobbying is helping to change decision-making processes.
	In the end that is surely what we should all be agreed on, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said. We should all want fairness from the Bill. Given that the Library has admitted that this is a grey area and that at the moment the Bill does not capture this—it perhaps captures a few other things—I desperately hope that we can come up with guidance on the Floor of the House. If not, those cosy conversations will increase, and paper trails will be quietly hidden away—nobody can track down a quiet conversation over lunch.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the. Member for Chipping Barnet, who admitted that the application was discussed. I gave her the courtesy of letting her know that I would refer to her correspondence. She admitted that additional
	information was later sent to the three Departments—I have the proof of that. The trail has gone somewhat dead and I am disappointed about that. I am still hopeful that there is time to see sense and overturn the decision, but what has come out of this situation is the unedifying spectacle whereby I can go through many weeks of appeals with my constituents in the public domain where everyone can hear everything and then, unbeknownst to us, when the process is stalled, the developer can have private lunches at which, because there happens to be a university connection, old friendships have been called in. That is not acceptable; that is not democracy. I am sure that the Bill will now appropriately consider this grey area.

Ian Lavery: Like many other hon. Members, I have had more communications on this issue than on virtually anything else since I became a Member of Parliament. Whether we agree with them or not, we have a duty to listen to the views, comments and strong opinions of our constituents.
	The Leader of the House and other Government Members have suggested that the Bill is fantastic in every way. That is absolute gobbledegook. It has also been suggested that this is the worst Bill ever to be placed before Parliament, with its fanciful but misleading title heading up what has to be the worst-written Bill ever presented. That is not unintentional; the clauses in the Bill are intentional. They are a full-frontal attack on members of society—let there be no mistake about that. The people who wrote the Bill are very well educated, guided very well by the Ministers in charge of the Department. Let us not hide behind thinking that they are not and that the Bill is not really what they mean. It is exactly what they mean. Perhaps the Bill should have been withdrawn. Perhaps it could be renamed the Government’s Glorified Gagging Bill, the Can’t Criticise Cameron Bill, or the Big Society (Just Be Very Quiet) Bill, because that is exactly what it is all about.
	It was the Prime Minister himself who warned that lobbying was the next great scandal waiting to happen. It was the Prime Minister who said that he would put it right. The Bill misses every single target. It misses the big money in lobbying and hits the people at the bottom who are doing their best. It misses the likes of Lynton Crosby, who is at the heart of a rotten Government, and hits charities such as Barnardo’s, Cancer UK and Diabetes UK. To be frank, that is unacceptable.

Andrew Gwynne: Does my hon. Friend not find it ironic that at a time when politics is at an all-time low in public esteem, we have a Government hell-bent on attacking the very groups and organisations that are good at getting the general public involved in political and public debate?

Ian Lavery: I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. I will come on to that point in the later part of my contribution.
	The Bill misses the Lynton Crosbys and the Lord Ashcrofts, and will allow them to plough millions and millions of pounds into constituencies while other people are constrained in how they want to do their business. Not only does it fail to deal with corporate lobbyists, but it effectively stitches together the lips of the big society, in the year before a general election, for fear of
	breaking the rules. In her excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who has just left the Chamber, described the reforms as a dog’s breakfast. Thehon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) disagreed, saying
	“He is wrong, of course. Far more thought has gone into pet nutrition than into this Bill.”
	The hon. Member for Clacton has great experience of being a Government attack dog and someone here is barking up the wrong tree. For a Government who created a Minister for the big society to create such a Bill would be laughable if it was not so frightening. It has been described as having a chilling effect on the work of charities, pressure organisations and local community groups. This is an unprecedented attack on our national institutions of democracy and on individual free speech.

David Anderson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being late for this debate; I have been in a Committee meeting. My hon. Friend said that the Bill was unprecedented. Does he agree that the other constitutional changes that the Government parties have tried to get through this House, such as boundary changes, Lords reform and changing the voting system, are the same as this Bill? They are using the constitution to give themselves political advantage at the next election and future elections. That is what this Bill is about.

Ian Lavery: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; he is absolutely right. Everything in this Bill is about giving the coalition political advantage in the year running up to the next election—and, indeed, at every election.
	The Bill is an unprecedented attack. Charities, campaigning organisations and local groups are frightened by the Bill, but they should wait until they hear the detail and see how it develops. We will see people leaving local groups. There will be no voice for the local opposition to wind turbines, fracking or anything else. We will not have trustees on trustee boards of charities because they will be frightened in case they break the law, because they do not even understand what this law means, and they are not the only ones. We had a meeting this morning with some barristers who said that they had spoken to the Electoral Commission and they did not have a clue what the legislation meant. What is more, they said that the Electoral Commission was not even consulted on the legislation. They are the people who will be policing the legislation and they have not even been consulted on any of the detail. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Government have approached the issue in that manner.
	Charities and campaigners have worked tirelessly. They have opposed the bedroom tax, reductions in doctors and nurses, reductions in the police and the fire service, and reductions in many other public servants. Those groups have opposed increases in tuition fees and issues such as fracking, wind turbines and nuclear power. You name it, Madam Deputy Speaker, local charities and groups have been involved, and good on them. Do we not want people to be involved in politics? Are we happy to come here as 650 MPs just to discuss ourselves and ignore what the rest of the country wants? Is that
	what we want? I am sure it is not, so we need to listen to what is being said out there by the people.
	The people who have been e-mailing me are hardly raving militants looking for a revolution. What they want is fairness. They want to be able to understand what this legislation is about. I was embarrassed for the Leader of the House. He made a botch-up of the NHS Bill and here he is the second time, with a Bill placed before him that he could not even defend.

Hywel Francis: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. He has spoken about his constituents. Is it the case in his constituency, as in mine, that, overwhelmingly, those approaching him and writing to him are not affiliated to the Labour party? In fact, they are trade unions such as the NASUWT—the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers—and a range of charities, many of them small organisations that are very local.

Ian Lavery: Yes; in fact, of the nearly 300 e-mails I have received, very few are from trade union members, massive charities or the big lobbyists. They are from run-of-the-mill local people who are frightened. They are people whom the Prime Minister described perfectly as “the big society”. They thought they had a role; they are now being kicked in the teeth.
	In Wansbeck, the Bill will have disastrous consequences for small charities, like those that my hon. Friend mentioned, and community groups, which have limited resources and limited access to legal advice, and could easily be tripped up by the legislation. The National Trust, a big organisation, often has an input into major infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2. Will those organisations be covered by the legislation? Local community groups opposing the building of wind turbines; charities seeking an increase in the level of GDP that we spend on international aid—will they all be covered by the legislation? People are frightened about what it means, and they have not even begun to understand the consequences of the legislation.
	Let me deal with part 3 of the Bill and the nature of the TUC, which has been in existence since 1866. Under this legislation, the TUC could be outlawed—it could be criminalised in the year running up to the election. The Durham miners’ gala, which I am proud to attend every year and which upwards of 100,000 to 150,000 people attend—people from all walks of life and all parts of Britain, getting together with their families—could be outlawed and criminalised because of this legislation. The Tolpuddle march, celebrating the history of the people sent to Australia all those years ago, could be outlawed. People could be criminalised under this legislation. Is it not an absolute outrage that we face this sort of thing in a Bill that is being rushed through Parliament?

Hywel Francis: Just on a historical point, the TUC was set up in 1868. More importantly, however, the leaders of the trade unions that formed the TUC in 1868 were overwhelmingly liberals, not socialists.

Ian Lavery: I accept that point from my hon. Friend.
	In conclusion—very quickly—the legal advice suggests that this is a clear violation of privacy and freedom of association, as enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The proposals clearly breach international
	law, namely articles 8 and 11 of the ECHR. The Government have got this wrong. The target was the wealthy and the corruption in politics, with MPs and people with finances behind them. What the Government have done is hit the people at the bottom of the tree. I urge the Government to bin the Bill.

Stephen McPartland: Before the debate started, I was quite optimistic about the Bill, because I thought it was a positive step forward. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, said, it would be quite nice to have a consensual way forward. I am pleased that we are debating the Second Reading of the Bill, because it gives us the opportunity next week to try to make some amendments, if people feel the Bill needs amending, and allows the charities dealt with in part 2—I shall come to that in a moment—to get commitments from the Minister at the Dispatch Box on what the provisions in the Bill mean.
	Before I go through the bits of the Bill that I want to discuss, I should point out that a lot of those charities’ concerns apply to the law as it stands, as opposed to what is in the Bill. If the Bill did not go through, those charities and third-party organisations would still have a lot of those concerns about the current law, because of what we heard earlier about regulated expenditure. We have an opportunity to have the Bill spoken about on the Floor of the House next week, to get as many of us as possible involved and ask as many questions as possible, and then to get those issues out in the open, so I welcome the Bill in that sense.
	I also welcome the fact that the Bill establishes a statutory register of professional consultant lobbyists. I know that it does not do enough for some of us, but it is the first step along the way.

Fiona O'Donnell: Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that the reductions in the ceiling for registering for political activity and in spending limits will have a huge impact on third parties?

Stephen McPartland: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I do not think those reductions will have any impact whatever. I have 400 charities and voluntary groups in my constituency, and if any of them could spend £400,000 they would be over the moon. The reality is that the reductions will not affect them whatever.

Alan Whitehead: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the discussion of this Bill and the extent to which it can be discussed in Committee, but is he not aware that the long title specifically talks about regulation of consultant lobbyists, and only regulation of consultant lobbyists? This Bill is not the beginning of a process; it is the end of a process. If he reads the long title, his hope that it can be amended more positively might prove to be sadly misplaced.

Stephen McPartland: I did take the opportunity to read the long title, as I do with every Bill on which I vote. Sometimes I vote in the Lobby with Opposition
	Members. I am not one who always supports the Government 100%, although I do support them 100% on this Bill because it is starting a process. When matters are discussed on the Floor of the House, it creates a debate in Government and wider society, after which we can push for further improvements if that is what is needed. I have read the title; I have also read the Bill and the huge amount of documentation surrounding it.
	I want to emphasise that the Bill represents progress. We are going to establish for the first time a register of consultant lobbyists. I know that some Members are concerned about how in-house lobbyists affect what happens here, but the reality is that if a Government relations person—as I believe they are called—from a particular firm turns up here, it is perfectly obvious that they will be trying to influence policy on behalf of that firm. That is fair enough. It is the same with trade unions. It is their responsibility to try to influence policy on behalf of their members; otherwise, what is the point of them? I do not really see a distinction between in-house lobbyists and others.
	The public are more concerned, as am I, about when we meet a representative of some public relations agency and we do not know what they are going to talk about. When I first became a Member of Parliament, I was very naive in my first six or seven weeks here. I did not understand why so many people wanted to meet a mere Back-Bench MP. I actually saw the same lobbyist three times in one week, expressing three different views. I then decided never to meet a lobbyist again. Anyone who wants to meet me has to be the chief executive of their organisation or to be based in my constituency. In that way, I at least know who I am talking to and what they are talking about. For me, that is key.
	A further issue relates to transparency and public confidence. The public want transparency. I must confess that, until I heard the wonderful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), I never knew that lobbyists had any influence whatever. I thought that they just sat around and had a bloody good chat and then decided that they really ought to do something, but that nothing ever happened. The example that my hon. Friend gave was the first I have heard of a lobbyist having some influence.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman seems to be setting great store by the creation of the new register of lobbyists. I wonder whether he is equally content with the following provision in the Bill:
	“The Minister may dismiss the Registrar if the Minister is satisfied that the Registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office.”
	There is no requirement for the Minister to have reasonable grounds for removing the registrar. Should not that be changed?

Stephen McPartland: I am delighted that we are the most transparent Government ever. I cannot imagine any of our Ministers wanting to remove those provisions, but that is one of the matters that could be debated and tightened up in Committee next week.
	We are the most transparent Government ever, and transparency is very important to me. I know that this is not an appropriate time, but there should be a debate at some point about whether privacy is a 20th century
	concept and transparency is a 21st century concept, given that we spend so much of our lives online and involved in the data world. For me, transparency is key, and that is why I support the Bill. Part 1 represents the first step towards recognising that lobbyists might have some influence. That might not go far enough for some Members, but we should agree that it is a step in the right direction and support it for that reason.

Anne Main: I thank my hon. Friend for complimenting me on my comments on lobbyists, who have enormous influence. The fact that the case I mentioned involved two refusals followed by a permission being granted not long after a significant amount of heavy lobbying suggests the amount of influence that they really have. That is what we need to debate today.

Stephen McPartland: My hon. Friend makes another wonderful point. As I have said, that was the first example I had heard of a lobbyist having any influence. I am sure that his clients were delighted, as they had probably spent a lot more than the £12 million they spent on getting the planning permission on employing previous lobbyists who had no impact whatever.
	Government procurement is an incredibly bureaucratic process that can go on for ever. We all have small businesses in our constituencies that struggle to engage with those bureaucratic procedures that never really get anywhere. I question how much influence those procedures have, but the Bill represents a step in the right direction.
	I want to move on to part 2 of the Bill, the part that has elicited the most consternation today. I understand that charities will still be able to support specific policies advocated by political parties if that will help them to achieve their charitable purposes, and that the law currently prohibits them from engaging in party politics or party political campaigning, from supporting political candidates or from undertaking political activity that is unrelated to the charity’s purpose. The Bill seems to be dealing with trust. The Government trust the charities to engage in the policies that they want to engage in, and to do so responsibly. There also seems to be a lack of trust on the part of the charities, however, which is understandable. They are regulated by the Charity Commission, and a number of concerns and grumbles have been expressed about that over the years. The charities are asking for more specific guidance. Many of the issues that have been brought to my attention will be relevant under the current law. The charities are already having to make a judgment call under the existing law about whether their activities would affect the outcome of an election and whether they are dealing with regulated expenditure. Many of those issues are already relevant today.
	I was asked earlier about the spending limit. Reducing the spending limit from just under £1 million to just under £400,000 is a positive step. Taking the big money out of politics is the most important thing—[Laughter.] Opposition Members might laugh and joke about that, but I remember when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was introduced and the Electoral Commission came into being. One of the prerequisites of being employed by the commission was that a person should have had no experience of doing anything related to elections. The process was approached from the point of view that all the local organisations that we represent are hugely well funded by mysterious
	millionaires behind the scenes. I can assure hon. Members that the only millionaire funder in my constituency does not support my party; they support the party to which the previous Member of Parliament belonged.
	The introduction of the Bill is a positive step because it allows us to talk about the issues of transparency that matter to the public. Like many Members, I have had a lot of e-mails about the Bill from various organisations. I had one from an organisation whose name I shall not deign to mention that referred to a “gagging” Bill. The Bill will do no such thing. Not one of the 400 charities and organisations in my constituency has complained to me about the Bill, and none of them would consider themselves to be involved in political campaigning.

Tom Harris: They are going to be in for a shock.

Stephen McPartland: Well, they might well be in for a shock, but they would not consider themselves to be part of a political campaign. I imagine that the debates we will have during the general election campaign will be the same old debates with the same people, and that nothing will have changed.
	The Bill represents a positive step forward because it allows us to discuss the issues that matter to the public, such as the need for greater transparency in politics. One Opposition Member stated that he had previously worked for Oxfam, and some of the earlier speakers said that the problem with lobbying was that it did not involve Ministers, but that it involved civil servants, desk officers and day officers. Well, that is news to me. I genuinely think that if I had wanted to get something done when I was in business, I would have gone to the decision maker to get the deal done. We have to do it in the most transparent way possible; otherwise, we get sued. I would have thought that that was how it worked. As I said earlier, apart from what my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans said, I have never heard of lobbyists having any real influence other than what is generated by the media or within their own circle of friends, trying to inflate what they do.
	I have with me information about what a number of charities are concerned about. They say that they want greater definition of regulated activities, so when the Bill is in Committee next week, we can ask those questions and get responses from the Minister on the Floor of the House. That should be good enough for a lot of charities. They are concerned, too, about whether staff costs should be included. If they are spending £800,000 on staff costs and £20,000 on leaflets, I do not how long those charities are going to exist; if they were a business, they would not be in business for very long. It is in their own interests to gain a greater understanding of how many of their staff are involved in these campaigns. I agree with what they say about aggregate spending, and I agree that the “Enough Food for Everyone” campaign was a very important one. I believe that, as some of the charities have set out, they should be involved only for the amounts that they have popped in. The final issue relates to the levels of expenditure, and I said earlier that I agree about that.
	Part 3 deals with the trade unions. I see no reason whatever why the trade unions would not want to have an up-to-date register of members, and I cannot see that this Bill will have much of an impact on most of
	them. Given that their subscriptions are involved, how they work on a day-to-day basis is what will count, as the unions engage with their members.

Cathy Jamieson: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a short contribution to this afternoon’s important debate. I follow what I thought was an excellent speech from the shadow Leader of the House, who laid out for us all and on behalf of many of our constituents the very real concerns that exist over this Bill. Her speech was followed, of course, by another excellent one by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee.
	What we have heard subsequently, from both Opposition and Government Members, is a whole series of reasons why this Bill should not proceed at this time. We have heard how it would have been possible to garner some consensus and some support to deal with the real issues around lobbying. The constituents who contacted me—not those who could be described as “the usual suspects” or people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned, seeking a revolution—are simply people who are seeking transparency, who want a Bill to deal with some of the “dodgy dealings” they perceive to have gone on in the past and who want to ensure that politics is cleaned up and the lobbying industry held to account. Those are the terms in which my constituents contacted me.
	It is interesting to note the number of constituents who contacted me who are involved in small voluntary organisations and small charities in local communities. They, as well as a number of trade union members, are genuinely worried about the implications of this Bill. My constituents want to see a proper register, but they do not like any suggestion that perfectly legitimate organisations putting forward points of view to try to make a case to change things in their communities or to change legislation should in any way be gagged. I heard the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) suggest that the Bill was not about gagging. I would respectfully suggest to him, however, that if we have a coalition—if I may use that word—of organisations ranging from the trade unions through the legal sector, the Electoral Commission, the voluntary sector, charities and political commentators of all shapes, colours and sizes, all of which are in agreement about the problems with this Bill, it is indeed time to take notice.
	With my background in the voluntary sector and my working for a Scotland-wide organisation before I became a Member of the Scottish Parliament back in 1999, I have some concerns to express. I would not have been able effectively to do my job campaigning on behalf of young people in the care system had I not been able to approach the various Ministers of the day and the various local authorities of the day to make my case. Indeed, it was my responsibility so to do.
	One real concern emerging from today’s debate is that at a time when charities and the voluntary sector are already feeling under pressure because of cuts in funding and are already finding it difficult in some instances to speak out for fear of somehow prejudicing
	future funding or opportunities to gain funding or support from government, any suggestion that they might be stopped in doing their job is a worrying matter for them, as indeed it should be.
	In common with others, I have some serious concerns about how the Bill has been handled. Given that I have had various exchanges across the Chamber with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who I see in her place, I am somewhat surprised about the matter of pre-legislative scrutiny. If ever a Bill were designed for such scrutiny, it would be this one, given the number of different organisations and interests affected. Frankly, it is not good enough to hear Government Members saying, “It will be all right; we will sort it out in Committee” when so many serious concerns have been expressed and so many amendments would be required to make this Bill workable as to make it questionable whether the Bill should proceed to Committee at all.

Andrew Gwynne: The list of organisations that have expressed concerns about the Bill includes the regulator, the Electoral Commission, which has identified a series of controls that are unenforceable. Does that not underline the argument in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny? If the regulator cannot enforce the Bill, what is the point of it?

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend has made an extremely pertinent point. I find it astonishing that the Electoral Commission has not been more involved in the process, and that no evidence was taken from it at an earlier stage with the aim of improving the Bill.
	I believe in pre-legislative scrutiny. It has been part and parcel of the way in which the legislation has been dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, and I think that there should be more of it in this Parliament. If pre-legislative scrutiny was good enough for the Bill that became the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012—and I believe that it enabled us to improve that Bill—I cannot see for the life of me why it is not good enough for such an important and wide-ranging Bill as this.

Mark Durkan: Perhaps if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny we should be able to answer a very basic question that people are asking now. Why should the definition of the activities in part 2 have a wide and potentially rolling scope, while the definition of consultant lobbying activities in part 1 is deliberately and calculatedly narrow?

Cathy Jamieson: That too is an important point which could have been explored further during pre-legislative scrutiny. I fear that if the Bill is allowed to proceed, we shall find that when we try to repair some of the damage caused by its current construction, we shall be working on very shaky foundations. A Member suggested earlier that we could build on the existing provisions, but the Bill has a particular scope, and if we get it wrong when trying to build on those shaky foundations, something will come tumbling down at some point in the future. That is what the voluntary organisations and charities are so concerned about.
	I now want to say something about Scotland and the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) asked the Leader of the House a specific question about the referendum
	in Scotland during his opening speech, but did not receive a response. I hope that one will be forthcoming in the winding-up speech.
	Let me put to Ministers a number of points that were made in an excellent briefing paper supplied to Members by the Law Society of Scotland, an organisation that has a great deal of experience and an excellent record in scrutinising the technicalities of legislation. The briefing is very thorough, and I shall not quote from all of it in detail, because some of it would be dealt with best in Committee. However, I want to put on record some of its key points about what it considers to be the overall poor shape of the Bill, because they strike at the heart of this debate and echo arguments advanced by voluntary sector organisations and, indeed, by Members today.
	The society says that it
	“recognises the importance of ensuring the public’s trust and confidence in the political process”.
	I think we would all agree with that, and would also agree that
	“transparency provides effective oversight and scrutiny of the political process and is a central element of good governance.”
	The briefing continues:
	“The Scottish Government has indicated that they too shall…be introducing a bill for a statutory register of lobbyists.”
	It also makes the important point that
	“to ensure equal transparency, public understanding and appreciation by organisations and businesses, who engage in lobbying, of their responsibilities, the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments should ensure any registers are aligned to minimise potential business and public uncertainty.”
	I hope that in the closing speech the Minister will outline what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government. In particular, have the Government discussed part 2 of this Bill with the Scottish Government, and if they have not, do they intend to do so and bring forward further information to us?
	The Law Society of Scotland has also raised the concern that the Bill covers only consultant lobbyists—effectively the third-party lobbyists. It suggests that that could give rise to confusion among the general public who, as we have heard, are unlikely to distinguish between consultant lobbyists, in-house lobbyists and any other form of lobbyist. That is an important point.
	I hope Ministers will also look at what the LSS has to say on a number of other technical points in relation both to the definition of businesses and the definition—this always arises in discussions of Bills—of “person” or “persons” and what that will actually mean in practice.
	Clause 12 states it will be
	“an offence for a person to carry on the business of consultant lobbying”
	unless they are registered, or to engage in lobbying activities if their details as entered on the register are “inaccurate or incomplete”.
	The LSS raises serious concerns with regard to the strict liability offence. It is worried that
	“a mere omission, error or inadvertency can result in an offence being committed in respect of clauses 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4).”
	That is a very serious worry.
	The LSS also refers to the measures in clause 13 on bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships, and suggests that if the Bill proceeds—I have to say I hope it does not—clause 13(3) should be amended in keeping with
	the terms of the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Act 2013, because that relates to a point that is further expanded in clause 16, which addresses the statutory maximum of any penalty notices. There is a difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK in that context, and I hope Ministers will consider that.
	Madam Presiding Officer, in conclusion let me say I think I have made my views clear—[Interruption.] I have done it again! I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been talking too much about the Scottish Parliament. Every time I do this, I think I must not ever do it again, and yet now I have done it again.
	I think I had better cease at this point, other than to say that this is a very bad Bill. It is not well drafted and it will not enact the principles it espouses, and I will vote against it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Some 23 Members still wish to speak, and it is therefore necessary to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench contributions to eight minutes with immediate effect. I ask Members to consider that they are not required to take up the entire eight minutes, even if there are interventions. I hope we will manage to call every Member who wishes to speak.

Angie Bray: I shall focus primarily on the lobbying aspect of this Bill, having provided media advice to a public affairs company back in the 1990s. Ironically, I have been heavily lobbied on this Bill myself by the well-known lobbying organisation 38 Degrees. I should say for the record that I certainly support parts 2 and 3, but I cannot say the same about part 1.
	The Leader of the House has told us that the Bill seeks to increase transparency, but I say with regret that I fear it will fail to achieve that laudable aim. Indeed, if left unamended it will simply give us a false sense of security, and it will be Parliament’s and the Government’s reputations that will suffer when people discover that, to misquote, “It doesn’t do what it says on the tin.”
	Lobbying may not be the oldest profession, though some may feel that it shares some of the same attributes, but it has certainly been around for as long as there has been a Parliament. Naturally, those wanting to advocate an interest or to make a case will gravitate towards the decision makers gathered together in Parliament. As a former Member for Enfield, Southgate, Michael Portillo, once said in respect of lobbying, every great city needs its sewers. He was right. Some in this House may not particularly like lobbyists, but they provide a service in contributing information to our debates and policy making. Crucially, we may choose to accept or reject this information as we see fit. Of course, the right to be heard is an integral part of our democratic process, and surely any individual or business is entitled to retain an advocate to make their case.
	That is not to say that legitimate concerns have not been raised about malpractices in the past, but the industry responded to those by establishing its own code of conduct and register, which have, so far as I am aware, been effective. After all, the existing register includes names
	of all lobbyists employed by a consultancy, as well as the names of all the clients on whose behalf they work. It may not be perfect, but it provides a great deal more transparency than is proposed in the Bill, because fewer companies would be required to register under this Bill than under the industry’s own voluntary code. Whereas now almost all lobbyists declare any clients for whom they provide political advice, under this Bill they would only declare clients on whose behalf they have had direct communication with Ministers or permanent secretaries. The Bill seems to suggest that humble Back Benchers, and members and even Chairmen of Select Committees, carry little influence. I know that Back Benchers are sometimes described as “Lobby fodder”, but it seems harsh to enshrine such a view in law.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Lady is making a strong point about part 1. Does she share my concern that the vast majority of lobbying that goes on is not with Ministers or permanent secretaries but with other parts of the political system, and the Bill does not address that?

Angie Bray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, one well understood by those who have had some experience of the lobbying industry.
	This aspect of the Bill will affect only “consultant lobbyists”; it will not affect in-house lobbyists, trade associations, charities, trade unions, accountants or lawyers. But that is not all, as it will not even affect all consultant lobbyists; it will affect just those for whom lobbying is a substantial part of their businesses. There must be a number of large companies for which lobbying is a substantial part of their business, but they can reasonably claim it is subsumed into all the other connected areas that they work in.
	Fewer companies would be registered under this Bill than currently register voluntarily. The point at which registrable activities would be triggered would actually mean that less lobbying activity is declared. No light would be shed on the numerous companies and organisations that lobby us daily but do so using an in-house lobbyist. Again, there are some large companies whose business encompasses a wide variety of interests, but we will not know, thanks to this Bill, which bit they are pushing at any meeting at any given time. Far from bringing transparency to lobbying, the Bill defines lobbying so tightly and so unrealistically as to become almost meaningless.
	Let us remind ourselves of why this Bill, so long in gestation, has been brought forward now. It is because of a raft of allegations in the media in recent months that pointed towards misconduct by parliamentarians, but let us be clear that no actual lobbying company was involved in those episodes and that, in any case, rules are already in place. More importantly, the activities uncovered by the media would not have been registrable under this Bill, because none of the protagonists were either Ministers or permanent secretaries. I am afraid that in seeking to clear up the lobbying scandals we should perhaps look closer to home.
	Also unchecked by this Bill will be all those with parliamentary passes and free access to Parliament whose ultimate paymasters are not the MP or peer whose name appears on the pass, but a raft of special
	interest groups or trade unions. We will learn nothing more about their activities in Parliament because these people will also not be covered by the Bill—so much for transparency.
	I wish to focus my closing remarks on the effect of the Bill on charitable and other non-party campaigning. On that aspect, I am pleased to say that I am more supportive of the Bill. It seems iniquitous that candidates are limited by the amount they can spend during an election period on setting out their arguments, but that a third party can lavish many more thousands of pounds to make a political case that could have a direct influence on the outcome of a local or national result.

Tristram Hunt: Is there any academic evidence of the effect of third-party campaigning in changing the result of an election to Parliament?

Angie Bray: I cannot imagine that anybody would waste their money if they did not think that there was a desirable outcome.
	If we are to limit election expenditure, then limit it we should without fear or favour to any political party or special interest group. I find it hard to believe that many members of the public who happily chuck a couple of quid into a bucket rattled for a charity in a supermarket on a Saturday morning fervently wish their money to go into political campaigning rather than to the cause that has appealed to their generosity in the first place. That is why I do not believe that the Bill will affect charitable activity; I do not believe that charities, on the whole, tend to do politics.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angie Bray: No. I have given way twice and other Members are keen to speak.
	Let us be clear: the Bill will not curtail policy campaigning but only campaigns during elections that are targeted directly at political parties or their candidates, who are themselves limited in what they spend.
	I fear that the Bill will not succeed in one of its primary aims, and I speak as a candid friend when I urge the Minister to revisit the proposals for the register of lobbyists. The Government are right to seek to extend transparency further in the lobbying of Parliament, but sadly I do not think we have grabbed the opportunity with both hands, as we should. Although I hesitate to say that we need less of a rush, given how long it has taken to get to this point, we need far greater detailed consideration and—dare I say it—a better understanding of how the lobbying industry works.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and for St Albans (Mrs Main). I do not necessarily agree with everything they said, but at least they have been thoughtful and have a good idea of what they are talking about. A number of my Opposition colleagues have also made very good speeches.
	We have to agree that not all lobbyists are bad. As Members of Parliament, we get a lot of information from lobbyists that we use to our benefit. There is no
	way that I, as a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, could see every person who wants a meeting with me, but I try to meet those who will shed a light on whatever idea the Committee is talking about at the time. We use that information when we talk to Ministers and that is how it should be.
	I do not believe that the Bill gives us transparency. It is very narrow and I think that an idea was formed somewhere along the line about how it could be used. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that it is a bad Bill, I also think that there must be a reason why these things are being done. These people are not idiots—they know what they are doing and there must be a reason behind it. Although the Bill is a bad Bill, I believe that its purpose is to stop my party winning the next election. If last week’s vote on Syria had gone a different way—I am glad to say that it did not—would that have been because third parties had lobbied us to support the Government in what they were trying to do?
	We suffered as a party in the 2005 election when the coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, picked up a lot of votes on the back of an anti-war vote. Their support slackened off, as we saw when we got to the 2010 election. I believe that the Bill would have stopped the third parties in 2005 saying, “Don’t vote for a Government who go to war.” I think that worked against us. The Government are not that stupid, and avoiding that is one reason why we have the Bill. We have talked about the rail network and its effect, and the same applies here. The Bill could be used against anything that is anti-Government.
	What are we doing? We are talking about registers of interests. Only 1% of those who lobby will be put on a register and the rest would not be on it. Why would that be? Who are we highlighting—the small groups, the individuals and the third-party wee groups who get together occasionally? Why would we want to do that? There must be a reason. Therefore, why are we doing that when we are not tackling the big lobbyists whom we met regularly? Why are they exempt? I ask these questions—I hope that the Minister can answer them—because I have not for the life of me worked out why the Government would want to do this.

James Duddridge: For many years, this House has not done enough to tackle lobbying. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) produced a massive Bill that was perhaps more along the lines that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) requires, but it was too difficult; it bit off too much to chew to be good legislation. One might argue that this Bill is narrow in the wrong places, but is there not an advantage in having a narrow and focused Bill?

John Robertson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe that he believes what he says. I actually believe that, if we are going to do this, everyone should be included. No one should be exempt, or everyone should be exempt. There is no point in putting a small group on to a register when everyone else can do as they will. If we are going to do it, let us do it right and put everyone on the list, so that we can see who is lobbying and that they meet the criteria.
	Previous speakers have said that Ministers will be the only ones who will be covered by this. It is funny that although Members of Parliament were exposed on television for doing something, every time that a Minister was exposed there were always rules governing the fact that they could get away with it. I mentioned that Deloitte has been paying for a member of a Minister’s staff—the Minister is not in his place at the moment—for a number of years, yet Deloitte gets billions of pounds-worth of business from this Government. That has got to be wrong, yet according to all the rules of Parliament, no rule was broken. There is something wrong with that.
	The Prime Minister employs someone in No. 10 who is obviously having an effect, but he says, “I have not talked to him on this subject.” Well, he has to talk about something, and I dare say that, whatever was important in Parliament, he was getting advice from that person on it. Whether that person should be allowed to give him that advice and whether he should have been allowed through the doors of No. 10 is another matter—and we need not go back to the matter of the gentleman who was supposedly a journalist who did his bit to try to help the Government to get into power and has now ended up facing court charges.
	These things have happened, but people keep getting away with it, and I want to know why. If we are going to have transparency in lobbying, transparency in campaigning and transparency on the trade unions, we must do it right. We should not go off half-cocked and try to attack people whom we do not like politically or whom we particularly disagree with. We should include everyone in a proper manner. We should have proper scrutiny. We should talk to the relevant Select Committees to help us with that scrutiny, and we should not ignore them. Unfortunately, what we see is a Government who want to ignore everything unless it suits them, so the question is why.
	Another example is that Volker Beckers, who is the former chief executive officer of npower, has become the chairman of the scrutiny committee of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. During his time as the CEO of npower, it did not pay a penny in tax. How can this happen? Is there no scrutiny of these people? Is no one observing what is happening?
	Why has this been allowed to happen? Lack of transparency and lack of knowing what is going on are the cause, and the Leader of the House—unfortunately, he is not in his place—must take responsibility for that. He is the man in charge. If he is not following up these things, they are his fault. He is the man who should fall on his sword, and we should get someone who is willing to do what is required.
	We have a voluntary register at the moment. I have never been happy with anything voluntary that is to do with business. I have always believed that the register should be mandatory. Unless we make it mandatory and the process is done in a proper manner that we are happy with as a Parliament, we will end up with the same problems that we have today, and we will still have the same arguments.
	Let me register an interest as a member of Unite, although I have not received any money off it for some time—certainly not in this Parliament. That might be because I am not doing a good job—who knows? I like to think I have always been a good trade unionist. I believe in trade unionism. I believe in what trade unions
	do. I believe that trade unions fight for those who do not have the power to fight for themselves, and I do not believe that unions should be attacked any more than anybody else. It is amazing that we have a register for them. We have members lists but why do we not have a register of members of the Minister’s party? Should we therefore take on the Conservative party and disband it because it does not meet the rules? If we had a mandatory register, that would be the case, and I would be all for it.

James Duddridge: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson). We agree on the need for the reform of lobbying, but disagree on quite a lot of the detail and the basic principle that I believe in—that taking some action now on a narrow range of issues is better than waiting a very long time to find a piece of perfect legislation that covers and encompasses all the problems that we face on lobbying. We had a Bill before the House that encompassed all those issues, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), and that was rejected in large part because it was too big.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned that he no longer receives funding from Unite. Had the union been listening to this speech, I would have said that it was much remiss. Later I will discuss third-party funding. Unite spent £16.9 million in the last general election year. I suggest that some should come the hon. Gentleman’s way next time round.

Yasmin Qureshi: To equate a trade union, which is fighting for workers’ rights, minimum wage and rights in the workplace, with big companies that are influencing Government is surely the wrong approach.

James Duddridge: I was not linking the two. I was talking about third-party funding and the unions, but I will come back to third-party funding in more detail.
	Let me take the Bill chronologically, starting with part 1 on the register of lobbyists. It is an interesting start. I was disappointed that the long title was not written to encapsulate further inclusion of other bodies if there was consensus in the House. On issues of time scale, I deeply regret that the previous Government did not introduce a Bill. I deeply regret that, although it was in the coalition document, we did not have the foresight to start this process earlier, which would have allowed a greater degree of pre-legislative scrutiny, but it is perhaps because the subject is tricky that it has taken the Government so long, rather than their trying to hide something.

Sheila Gilmore: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why we are constantly told that there has not been time, when we are three years and some months past the general election? Not just that, but the consultation paper on lobbying was ready well over a year ago. The Select Committee held a substantial investigation into it. It was clear that the proposals did not suit anybody and did not win approval on either side of the argument. It has been a whole year and a bit since the Select Committee reported.

James Duddridge: I gently say to the hon. Lady, 13 years and nothing done, three years and we are doing something, and the Opposition in large part are saying, “We don’t want to do it now,” or “It’s the wrong thing.” It is contradictory. I am not saying that the Bill is perfect, but it is a contradictory position that the Opposition are putting forward.
	The second part of the Bill deals with third-party funding. The Leader of the House skirted around the subject a little. I referred to it in an earlier intervention as the elephant in the room—the trade union movement. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West is right to ask why the Government are doing this. Clearly, I have a slightly more benign impression of the Government than do Opposition Members. One can think that natural, but looking at the facts and going through the House of Commons Library research paper, I wanted to know who these third parties were. I shall list some of them.
	Unison spent £671 million in the year running up to the general election in 2010. The National Union of Teachers spent £121 million—sorry, £122 million if one rounds up the £100,000. The Public and Commercial Services Union spent £84 million. Unite, which receives a bad press, was not spending very much money at all compared with some of the big guns, at £16 million. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers spent just under £5 million and Wales TUC £4.3 million. That list is not absolutely in order. There are about 20 names and I am less familiar with a number of them, such as Vote for a Change Ltd. I mention it because, under the proposed threshold of £388,000, only it and Unison would have been unable to do what they were already doing, so it is not a major issue.
	I also note that 38 Degrees is on the list. It spent either £10.8 million or £10.9 million—I do not know which because of my poor eyesight, but it was a sizable amount. I reflect on the e-mails that I have received about the Bill. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said that it was not just the unions that had written to him, but other constituents more generally. The vast majority of the people who have written to me about the Bill have been from one of the third-party funders: 38 Degrees. It was said earlier that the Wikipedia entry had changed and that the organisation was set up by Labour supporters and members. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think we need transparency.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman might like to take a couple of noughts off his calculations, bearing in mind that the total expenditure by third parties at the last general election was £2.8 million.

James Duddridge: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct; I was getting carried away—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has asked me to start my speech again. I can list the unions again with the correct figures. For Unison the figure was £671,000, rather than £671 million. For the National Union of Teachers the figure was £121,000. For the Public and Commercial Services Union the figure was £84,000. Those are still enormous amounts of money that, if targeted in individual areas, could have a massive impact.
	There is a case for having no limits, but if we have that for charities and unions, perhaps the first organisations that should have no limits are political parties. The House has taken the view, and legislated on it, that we should
	limit public expenditure. Anyone who has been a student of American politics can very much see why. Colleagues in Congress, when they hear how much we spend in individual constituencies, are dumbfounded at how little money is involved. What we do not want to see in the United Kingdom are political action committees or things of that ilk rising up and campaigning on behalf of or against Governments in the run-up to elections as a proxy service.
	Opposition Members disagree about Labour history, so I shall talk about it in trepidation, with great generality. The Labour party is the product of a union movement, and quite rightly that movement recognised that workers needed representation in Parliament because they were not getting a fair crack of the whip or fair representation here, but I gently say that things have moved on. The unions cannot have it both ways: they cannot give birth to an organisation that we accept in this place, and has limits on its expenditure at elections, and then spend large amounts of money themselves on those elections. That strikes me as entirely ridiculous.

Stephen Phillips: I will be asking my hon. Friend to write me a cheque later, given his propensity to add zeros to numbers. Leaving that aside, he is making a very good point. Things have moved on. Is not the Bill, and specifically part 3, just about creating a level playing field? If we care about democracy, is it not right that on neither side of the House and nowhere in this country should big money be able to buy political influence?

James Duddridge: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Under no circumstances should politicians on either side of the House prostitute themselves to big money. Time and again that has happened. I shall not be partisan and list 13 years of Ecclestone and so on. Let us take a larger chunk of time. Over the past 100 years all political parties have been guilty, and that demeans this House. A number of colleagues have said that lobbying is an important function. It is, but we need to draw the line between open, transparent lobbying and closed, dirty lobbying that involves buying influence and lots of money.
	When I read through part 3, I was quite surprised, given the history of union negotiations and strikes and the importance of numbers and votes, that this basic information is not already available. [Hon. Members: “It is.”] If, as Labour Members say, the information is already available, there is no additional burden so I am sure they will support part 3.

Jonathan Edwards: It is high time that the House examined the issue of lobbying. Our motives should be guided by two main aims that we should use to judge the provisions in the Bill, in addition to the stated aim of transparency.
	First, we must tackle the corrupting influence of big money and take it out of politics. I recently visited the United States on an exchange visit to Congress arranged by the British-American all-party group. I was amazed to learn that Congressmen spend a large amount of their time raising funds to fight the next election rather than legislating. As the old saying goes, “He who pays
	the piper calls the tune.” We should be avoiding, at all costs, pursuing the US route, but sadly the costs of politics in the UK are increasing. Therefore, the key to ensuring that our politics is not dominated by vested interests is to reduce the costs of politics.
	Secondly, legislation on lobbying, political campaigning and party funding should enhance the plurality of our politics, not undermine it. It is therefore a great shame that this Bill on lobbying fails to tackle the matter and would be virtually useless in dealing with any of the lobbying scandals of recent times—donations for dinners, cash for honours, cash for questions, and the ministerial “cab for hire” scandal of the previous Labour Administration. The key question is which one of these deplorable scandals would be stopped by the Bill.
	I have a background in public affairs, having worked for Citizens Advice Cymru before entering this place. The main effort of lobbying is focused on the Executive—Ministers, civil servants and special advisers in the Government—and not on the legislature, whether Parliament or the National Assembly. After all, it is within the Executive that key decisions are made. There is a strong need to regulate lobbying of the Executive and to deal with aspects such as the revolving door whereby figures in Government—civil servants, SpAds and Ministers—go on to take up positions in companies that have benefited as a direct result of the decisions they made while in Government.
	During the aforementioned visit to the States we had a meeting at the Pentagon, which was a very strange place for a Plaid Cymru politician to find himself. We learned that officials responsible for procurement or issuing contracts had to make an official annual declaration of their financial holdings for independent assessment, to ensure that their decisions were not being influenced by personal financial considerations. The civil service code in the UK does not make it a mandatory requirement for those in commissioning positions to publish such statements. If we are to have a cleaner politics Bill, surely that is the sort of measure we should be considering.
	There is no need to rush through legislation as this Bill seeks to do. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is highly sensible. We must get agreement among all the political parties that operate within the British state, not have something partisan being pushed forward by the Government of the day. This Bill should be dropped and a special Committee of the House be convened to recommend rules on lobbying that should then be implemented. Anything partisan is bound to fail.
	As others have noted, part 2 will impede the ability of third parties such as charities, think-tanks and other groups to campaign in the year prior to a Westminster election. I would like to highlight the potential for chaos among civil society groups operating in Wales and the negative impact on Welsh democracy. We live in a state of near-permanent elections—local, European and Westminster elections, and, of course, those for the devolved legislatures. Yet, again, we have a Westminster Government proposing legislation that does nothing to consider its impact on Wales.
	My previous employer is an England and Wales body, and in that post I would have been responsible for simultaneous UK-wide and Welsh campaigns, which often crossed over each other. How can organisations
	possibly dissect what aspects of campaigning work come under the provisions of the Bill, and how can the Electoral Commission regulate campaigning activity?
	The rules would be far more wide-ranging than reducing the annual expenditure. Regulations would cover a wide range of activities carried out for election purposes, such as controls on spending on events, media work, polling, transport, policy documents, discussing party policies, election material distributed to the public, and staff costs. The only things missing are staples and Blu Tack. Welsh democracy could suffer as a result, as charity and campaign groups may have their campaigning activities restricted all because of a Westminster election, while the same rules will not apply during an Assembly election year.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that part 2 applies not just to Westminster elections, but to elections for devolved institutions as well?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. There has been little consultation in Wales, as reflected by the very strong correspondence we have received from bodies in our country.
	Charities and campaign groups working in Wales could have their ability to interact with and make representations to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales curtailed, which could affect the quality of legislation designed in Wales. Critically, plurality in Welsh political life could be undermined. We have a very weak civil society as it is and many of the bodies in Wales are UK-wide or England and Wales bodies.
	A large bureaucratic job is being imposed on and expected from the Electoral Commission, and it is ironic that this is coming form the small-state Conservative party, with Lib Dem backing. The Electoral Commission did not call for the changes, nor was it consulted. What extra resources will it be given to achieve the new responsibilities that the Leader of the House is placing on it?
	Finally, on part 3, I am the son of a former trade union shop steward so it will be of little surprise to the Leader of the House and the Government that I have concerns and consider the provisions to be a thinly veiled attempt to restrict and constrict trade unions and trade union activity. The British state already has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in the western world. Far from hindering trade union activity further, we should be incorporating the unions into the economy as Germany has historically done, with unions playing a key part in industrial strategy and workers’ representatives on company boards.
	In conclusion, party funding is closely linked to the issues thrown up by the Bill. Plaid Cymru stresses the need for recognition that the politics of the British state is now undoubtedly a multi-party affair. Party funding rules should receive full consultation and agreement, and not be a stitch-up by the London parties. This Bill fails in the aim of removing big money from politics and undermines plurality. We will therefore vote against it this evening.

Sarah Newton: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who reminded us of an important principle that differentiates this country from America. Following his recent visit he noted that we do not have unlimited amounts of money at general elections. It is really important to us to create a level playing field, as far as possible. Those who write the largest cheques do not get to influence policy, and that important principle finds itself in this Bill.
	I also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is right to urge his own Front Benchers to recognise the significant steps being taken by this Government to address a complicated issue. Those Front Benchers did not take action when they were in government and they are not doing so now. They should pay heed to the work of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the service it has done the whole House over the recess, not only in reminding the general public that our work does not end when Parliament goes into recess and that we work throughout the year, but in highlighting the very important role that Select Committees can perform in scrutinising proposed legislation. I urge Labour Front Benchers to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and hope that every Member will use the next few days to examine the evidence that will be shared with us—it is the result of the hard work of colleagues from all parties over the recess—in order to reach a consensus, rather than this constant prevarication on what is undoubtedly a very difficult issue. It is important that we make progress on this issue.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Newton: I will give way in a moment when I have finished my point.
	This issue is important to my constituents and to constituents around the country. We are all concerned about powerful vested interests and their influence on politics and government. The Government are right to grapple with those concerns and to open up the process of how policy is influenced and made in our country.
	Like many Members, before I came to this House in 2010, I was very concerned about the centralisation of power in the hands of an over-mighty Executive. The Bill is part of what the Government are doing in a wide range of policy areas to transfer policy and power to the many, and not keep them concentrated with the few. I very much welcome those steps and know that they will be welcomed by people up and down the country.
	Lobbying is a vital part of my job and the job of everybody in Parliament. We are the champions for our constituents. It is our passion and dedication that ensure that the voices of our constituents are heard loud and clear, and that they get the changes that they want to see in their communities and across the nation. Lobbying is an important part of what we do, so it is important that it is properly understood and that there is greater transparency about how the process works.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Newton: Actually, there are only a few minutes left and I want to make some progress.
	In the remaining time available to me, I will focus on part 2 of the Bill because I am appalled by the shameless scaremongering about the impact on charities. Like some other hon. Members, I spent a considerable part of my career in the voluntary sector. For most of my career, I worked as a campaigner for a national charity, Age Concern, which is now Age UK. After that, I worked for an independent, non-political think-tank. I therefore have considerable experience of what it is like to work in a charity that is seeking to influence policy. I do not accept the arguments about the gagging of charities that have been made by Members today and by 38 Degrees in its campaign.
	Charities have always been heavily regulated. They understand their responsibilities during general elections. Whatever the good cause—whether it is Citizens Advice or a cancer charity—charities know that their funds come from the voluntary contributions of a wide range of people across the country who support all political parties. They certainly do not want to upset their donors by trying to get particular Members of Parliament elected in particular constituencies.
	Charities make a hugely important contribution during election campaigns by campaigning for policy changes and highlighting certain issues at a crucial time when the nation is focused on whom it will choose to represent it here and which parties it will elect into power. Charities ensure that the candidates are fully apprised of the views of the people they seek to serve. That includes the people for whom the charities seek to improve the quality of life and those who give the charities money and support their campaigns. That is something that charities have always done and, I am sure, will continue to do. I am concerned because owing to what I feel has been hysterical scaremongering by 38 Degrees, people are now worried that they will be gagged and that there will be a dumbing-down effect.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Newton: I have just a few seconds left. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House, the clarity that is needed about the role of charities and their ability to campaign, hold meetings and influence us will continue. I believe that charities and third sector organisations have a vital part to play in a vibrant democracy—in fact they will have an even greater role in the future, as we have seen when organisations such as Fish Fight come together. People’s concerns to have proper, legal clarification of the Bill will be enormously helpful. We will then have an important Bill and a good step forward to create a level playing field at the next general election.

John McDonnell: To be frank, I find this whole debate deeply worrying and depressing. We must remind ourselves that only a few years ago the House was brought into contempt in the eyes of the general public because of the expenses scandal. Even those of us who were completely clean were cast in the same light. For most of us, being elected was one of the proudest moments of our lives, but after the expenses scandal we almost had to apologise for
	being an MP. Then we legislated, we had an election, large numbers of new people came into the House, and we thought we had put the issue behind us. However, the Prime Minister was right to say that the next scandal would be about lobbying, which is why I welcomed the introduction of this Bill.
	It was most depressing and angry-making—I was furious—when I saw the films of Members of Parliament offering their services to lobbyists for money, so when the Government said they were going to introduce legislation, I did not mind so much about the speed as I wanted it done quickly but effectively. It is, however, acutely depressing that this Bill does nothing of the sort. By excluding the vast proportion of lobbyists—the in-house lobbyists—we are making ourselves a laughing stock.
	Let me follow on from what the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said. I have experience of in-house lobbyists. In my constituency, the third runway campaign, BAA, did not use external lobbyists; it used generally in-house lobbyists who not only lobbied but had passes to the Department for Transport. They were not bothered about meeting Ministers; they wanted to meet junior civil servants who wrote the projections of growth in passenger traffic and so on. That is how effective they were. When he was the Minister responsible for aviation, Chris Mullin asked how many BAA staff were in the Department for Transport on a daily basis. On the day he left, he was told that dozens of people had passes to come to the Department to influence people. I think that is corruption in any other terms, and the sort of thing we want to tackle.
	The hon. Member for St Albans gave a brilliant speech and some examples of what goes on. Bizarrely, however, the Bill does not tackle that level of corruption but gags the very people from whom we want to hear. It even gags them during the general election period when they can be most influential. I find the proposed legislation not only contradictory but shameful, and it is important to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. We should stand back for the next period, listen and take evidence from organisations and individuals with experience in this field, and come to some agreement about the way forward.
	If we cannot reach cross-party agreement on this issue, the Bill will not stand up in the long term. Once again the House will be brought into disrepute because we will be on the side of protecting lobbyists while trying to gag those who, as representatives of civil society, want their voice properly heard. I urge the Government to think again. Let us bring the parties together outside this Chamber and have another discussion about a proper way forward and a realistic timetable.
	We can still meet a timetable that enacts legislation before the next general election, but we need the next couple of months for careful consideration and the proper involvement of all those who will be affected. The only people who seem to be involved at the moment are professional lobbying associations, not those I think actually deserve to be heard. If the Bill is passed in its current form, it will go down as a Bill drafted by a lobbyist for certain types of lobbyists, and they will be those lobbyists who try to maximise their profit.

Paul Flynn: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and am grateful to him for giving way. He expresses the anger felt on both sides of the House about the potentially
	corrupting activity of lobbyists over many years. Can he think of any demand from anyone who believes that the next scandal in the country will involve Oxfam, the British Legion and Save the Children?

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Leader of the House would win the respect of the House if he took time to bring those organisations in to hear from them. He argues that gagging is not within the legislation. The impact of the legislation per se will not gag those organisations, but self-gagging will take place, because, as other hon. Members have said, people will not want to risk their charity’s or organisation’s funds on lawyers to advise them or to defend them when things go wrong. I therefore ask the Government to stand back, pause and consult, and introduce adequate legislation on which we can reach consensus. I am sure we can do it.
	Part 3 of the Bill is about trade unions. The reality is that, since Mrs Thatcher’s day, the Conservatives have wanted to introduce legislation that bans trade unions, but have realised they could not get it through the House. They have therefore successively introduced legislation to ensure that they impede the activities of trade unions as best they can. That is why we have had extensive discussions on the technicalities of balloting, registrations and so on.
	The measure is yet another way in which the Conservatives are trying to encumber trade unions with unnecessary bureaucracy to impede them in representing their members. Unions already have membership lists, which they must regularly update, because if they ballot for industrial action or on consultations, they must ensure the list are accurate—otherwise, they will be in court yet again, because employers can take legal action against them to prevent industrial action or any other form of action before strike action.
	The legislation is therefore unnecessary, but I find it offensive because it applies only to trade unions. Why just trade unions? The Leader of the House’s argument is that trade unions influence public policy, but so does the CBI, the Institute of Directors and a large number of organisations that are not encompassed by the legislation. That betrays the real agenda: the measure is an attack on trade unions—yet again—by the Government.
	I hope the Government see sense on that measure. All they will do is introduce another mechanism that sours the industrial relations climate in this country—another opportunity for litigation, meaning more time spent in the courts. That does not enhance the relationship between workers and employers, or the development of industrial, manufacturing or other economic policy by bringing people together; it simply increases antagonism. I believe it will therefore be counter-productive. I urge the Government to think again on the measure. It is petty, and they are introducing it now simply for short-term party advantage following debates before the summer recess. The measure will do nothing for the Government’s standing or for the relationship between trade unions and employers.
	Finally, this is no way to legislate. I fully agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House on that. This is no way to introduce a major constitutional reform. At the end of the day, if it
	is forced through by the Government, we will be back to amend it. However, while it is in place, it will undermine democratic engagement in this country across the piece.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is always interesting, although I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with him on this occasion.
	In fact, this is an excellent, measured and balanced Bill. It is the right Bill to introduce at this time. Every aspect of it makes me admire the Lord Privy Seal more than I have ever done before. He is right, in part 1, to have come to this approach for regulating lobbyists, because lobbying is an important part of our constitutional settlement. It is a right of individuals to come here to lobby us. Indeed, the petitioning of the Crown is a specific right in the Bill of Rights. It is why Parliament was assembled in the first place: people were able to petition for redress of grievance. Anything done to regulate or control lobbying has to be done with exceptional care and thoughtfulness, and to be as minimalist as possible while maintaining the proprieties we seek to achieve.

Paul Flynn: One of the most reliable and enthusiastic lobbyists in the country has had 53 meetings with Ministers in this Parliament, including 35 meetings with members of the Cabinet, to lobby for some sensible causes, some eccentric causes and some barmy causes. Should we not put this most influential lobbyist, Prince Charles, into the orbit of the Bill?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are so fortunate to have a Prince of Wales who is able to train properly for the job he will have as our sovereign in due course, and to have access to Ministers. Of course, that should be confidential. Compared to some princes of Wales we have had in the past, how fortunate—how blessed—is this nation to have one who does his duty so diligently? I am glad that he does, and I think we can admire His Royal Highness for that—almost as much as we admire the Lord Privy Seal.

Chris Bryant: I am slightly worried that the hon. Gentleman’s respect for the Lord Privy Seal is based on a fundamental misconception. I do not think he has read the Bill, because it does not say anything about regulating lobbying Parliament, only about lobbying Government. That is one of the Bill’s flaws.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman gets so over-excited on these occasions that he intervenes far too early. What I was going to come on to say is that the matter of what happens in Parliament is, rightly, not covered in the Bill. It is the duty of Parliament and the House of Commons itself to regulate its own affairs. If the Bill interfered in the procedures of this House I would oppose it. We have an absolute right, under the Bill of Rights, to freedom of speech in this House, and members of the public have the right of access to Members of Parliament. That absolute right must be defended. Members of the public must be free, whether individually or collectively, to express their views to Members of Parliament. If MPs fall foul of the high
	standards that are expected of them, then that is a matter for the Privileges Committee to deal with. We have powers not only to expel Members if necessary, but to imprison them, and they have no right of appeal to any court in the land.
	That is how we should proceed in terms of Parliament. Government is another matter and that is why it is right that part 1 deals with the lobbying of Ministers of the Crown and of civil servants. That is a matter rightly confined to legislation.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he just mentioned civil servants. In fact, the Bill does not cover civil servants, just permanent secretaries. Is that not a failing and an oversight of the Bill?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not think it is. It is important to deal with the senior figures who will be important in decision making, and the Bill is right to do that.
	The Bill is also absolutely right to confine itself to professional lobbyists. It is surely reasonable that when a public company—for example, Coca-Cola or Shell—has a meeting with Ministers, we know and understand that they will be promoting their own business. However, when an obscure lobbyist wanders into Downing street, we want to know who that obscure lobbyist is promoting. [Interruption.] Bing Crosby? I do not think he has been going to Downing street recently. As far as I am aware he is no longer alive. It is right that regulation should be at ministerial level. Crucially, the Bill defends the liberty of people to lobby, so it has got that difficult balance right. There has been talk about the long gestation period of the Bill. That has been because it has not been easy for the balance, between the protections of freedom of speech and the need to regulate lobbying, to be correctly aligned. The Government, in their wisdom, have succeeded magnificently in doing that.
	Part 2 is even better—it is the highlight of the Bill. It is so sensible that we should regulate third parties in the same way as political parties. The idea that a third party in a general election should be subject to less regulation than a political party that is openly fighting an election is the height of absurdity. The panic that we have had from the Opposition Benches and some in the charities section is glorious to behold. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) said that there was a firestorm—a literal firestorm—in Hampstead. I was hoping that London’s noble fire brigade was not going to go out and be disappointed—that it would not react as when it was summoned by Matilda, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker: it came out in all its glory and, of course, there was no fire, because Matilda called the fire brigade when there was not a fire to be seen. Eventually, there was, and she burnt to death. That is the danger of saying that there are firestorms, when in fact this is a perfectly sound Bill.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is so enthusiastic about this Bill. May I invite him to come to Northern Ireland, where I am sure everyone listens to every word he utters and takes it seriously? This Government are passing legislation in Northern Ireland to continue giving anonymity of political donations to political parties, yet we have wonderful charities in Northern Ireland that will be criminalised
	under this Bill if they happen to organise a rally or campaign in the run-up to an election. How can he square those two things?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady has been taken in by the scare story and this absurd idea of firestorms. That is not what is happening. Charities are not allowed to campaign in general elections, and quite rightly so. Political parties fight hard to raise their money, whether it comes from unions, business or individuals. Why should they not have charitable status, when charities may intervene in elections using the tax they have reclaimed—the extra funds and the status they have as charities—but without standing for election fully? And they cannot: the law does not allow charities to be directly involved in general elections.
	That is quite correct, and it will be maintained by this Bill. There is no change in the status of charities: they are not allowed to promote particular candidates in elections. That is surely right, and it is why this Bill has caused a storm that is quite unnecessary, because charities will be able, as they are now, to put forward the views they hold dear, but not to back individual candidates. With all the tax and fundraising advantages that charities have, they should not be involved in the election process. That is the standard of the Charity Commission as it is today; it should remain so. The controls that are in place are not being changed.
	What is being changed is the position on third parties—those organisations that lack the courage to stand for election, but wish to intervene in the election process by spending money up and down the country. They should be subject to the same requirements as political parties. If we are to have a cap on total spending for political parties that openly stand for election, a lower cap should be applied to third parties that do not have the courage to put their names forward to stand. If we do not have that, the alternative is to go down the American route, for which I have some sympathy, of completely unlimited spending—people can spend as much as they can raise. Opposition Members would not like that, because I can tell them that we on the Conservative side would raise a good deal more money on that basis than they do. We would outspend them a great deal, so they should be pleased about the caps, which are given by benign Conservatives to level the playing field with our socialist friends. That is a good way of ensuring that the democratic process is fair and is not skewed by money.
	A lot of campaigning organisations, including the NCVO—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations —receive a lot of money directly from the Government, and they are now spending that Government money lobbying the Government. That seems a terrible waste of public funds. I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee to make it even more perfect than perfect—to gild the lily—and prevent that wastage of public money.

Sammy Wilson: It is always a joy to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although it is sometimes a bit frightening as well. On this occasion, I am probably on stronger ground than at other times. It is not hard to knock down any arguments that the Bill is “excellent”, “balanced”, “sensible” or demonstrating “care and thoughtfulness”. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that
	lobbying is an important part of our democracy, but we must be sure that it is transparent and open to scrutiny. However, the Bill excludes most lobbying activities. As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that it would have been daft if any lobbyist’s first port of call had been my office or that of the permanent secretary. They went first to the officials who were writing reports for me. Any Bill that excludes that aspect of lobbying is not excellent, not balanced and not sensible.
	Let us look at who the Bill covers. It must cover the main lobbying activity, even though there are many ways of disguising that. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) pointed out, if anyone wants to get round the rules, they need only turn to schedule 1 of the Bill, because the way to get round them is to ensure that they get their man in on the inside. The lobbying organisation simply needs to ensure that their lobbyist becomes an official and an employee. The Bill is not balanced, and it certainly does not address some of the issues that we are concerned about.
	I tend to agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset—and to disagree with some Opposition Members—about third-party organisations. Of course they should be covered by the legislation, because many of them involve themselves quite openly in political activity. I suspect that many of the organisations that have lobbied me on this issue do not share my views on a whole range of subjects, but they nevertheless play an important part in the debate in our democracy. However, if we are to have rules and regulations covering third-party organisations, there needs to be certainty in that regard. The organisations need to know what the rules are, and what is expected of them.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset said that this part of the Bill was sensible, but let us just look at the hurdles those organisations will have to overcome. Any expenditure that they undertake that is deemed to be controlled expenditure will not be able to be used for “election purposes” or in connection with
	“promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for…one or more particular registered parties”.
	How is that to be measured? Who will measure it? We carry out assessments within our own parties after elections to determine what worked and what did not, and half the time even we cannot quantify which have been the important elements in the election campaign and which have been irrelevant. We find it difficult to determine what counted, what brought votes in and what did not. And it is even worse than that, because such controlled expenditure will also not be able to be used for
	“otherwise enhancing the standing…of any such party or parties”
	not only in the next election but in “future relevant elections”.
	That being the case, how will a third-party organisation be able to determine whether the expenditure has had an impact and ought therefore to be registered and declared? Of course, it gets worse because there are implications for the parties. The Bill goes on to set out that, if such expenditure has enhanced the standing of an individual or a party, or helped to procure their election, the relevant party will have to declare that. If it
	does not, it is a criminal offence. Let me ask the Leader of the House a genuine question: how are third-party organisations meant to measure that? How are parties themselves meant to make that assessment? If the Bill is as ambiguous and unclear as that, it is not good legislation; it is not sensible legislation; it is not carefully thought out legislation. That is one reason why we shall vote against it tonight.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I think that the momentum of my hon. Friend’s comments is absolutely spot on, but does he agree with me on this? Whenever lobby groups approach us, we assume that they have already spoken to all of our colleagues and all of our competitors—sometimes, by the way, that might be the same person! The lobbyists, we assume, have already spoken to all of those other people in the round anyway, so there is no big secret about what they are telling us. Is it not just that they are giving us their spin on a particular subject?

Sammy Wilson: We have already discussed the importance of lobbying groups in providing the sort of information we require to do our job, but if we are to regulate them, they have to know what they are being regulated for. In closing, let me give a couple of examples.
	I can think of many lobbying organisations that, because of the position I previously had in the Northern Ireland Assembly, had to see through many of the expenditure cuts that came as a result of decisions made here. They probably attached a lot of the blame for the consequences to me, and when it comes to the election, I am sure they will make that point. Does that sort of campaigning have to be declared as controlled expenditure, or is it simply what we would generally expect from organisations that have control over welfare changes, capital spending cuts and so forth?

Andrew Lansley: Let me intervene to disappoint the hon. Gentleman a little by pointing out that the bit of text he referred to in the Bill relating to what is defined as being for electoral purposes is exactly the same text as currently applies under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is what the current law provides, and it is simply being repeated in the context of this new Bill. The hon. Gentleman is thus attacking the Bill for doing something that already exists in law.

Sammy Wilson: It may well already be in law, but there are now additional penalties attached and additional requirements made on the organisations. For that reason, it does make the situation difficult for these groups.
	Let me provide another example. One group that is not affected by the Bill but nevertheless contacted me is the Christian Institute in Northern Ireland, which has taken a very strong view on gay marriage. Over the last six months, it has lobbied heavily on the issue, which might well have influenced how people who support the Christian Institute will vote in future elections. Is that organisation, then, to be subject to all the scrutiny of its expenditure and so forth—not just for this election, but for future ones—and to all the uncertainty attached to that?
	The Leader of House says that the provisions are already in place, but there are additional requirements for controlled expenditure to be declared and if it is not
	declared, it will count as an offence. If an offence has been committed, the organisations will of course find themselves either having to defend themselves in court or simply accept the allegations made against them. Again, that will have a chilling effect on their activities. If they have to defend themselves in court, it will lead to additional expenditure and it might also mean that the organisation will be tarnished. That is one reason why many of these third-party organisations are saying, “This is bad legislation; this is going to damage us; the legislation should be voted against.”
	The Bill does not deal properly with the ordinary lobby organisations: it does not include all their lobbying activities. It does include the activities of third-party organisations. Members may or may not approve of those activities, but the fact is that such organisations can currently engage in them, but will be dissuaded from doing so in the future. For those reasons, we will vote against Second Reading.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am reducing the speaking limit to six minutes to enable everyone to speak.

Jenny Chapman: I shall endeavour not to speak for the full six minutes, so that others can contribute. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and I agreed with much of what he said.
	My principal concerns about the Bill relate to part 2 and the issue of third parties. The rallying cry from Government Back Benchers seems to be, “This is better than doing nothing,” but a large part of the Bill is not better than doing nothing, and the rest of it probably is doing nothing.
	Government Members appear to be very worried about charities. According to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), charities do not do politics. Things are clearly a lot quieter in Ealing during the run-up to an election than they are in Darlington, where organisations such as Stonewall, Shelter, and even the NCT and Age UK devote much time, effort and creativity to trying to persuade candidates to sign up to some cause or pledge. I can understand why the Deputy Prime Minister may be keen on reducing that kind of activity before an election, but it is nevertheless crucial in encouraging vibrancy and participation in our electoral process by people who may be largely sceptical about politics. I think that such campaigning by charities is good for our democracy, because it helps more people to engage in political debate and enlightens candidates as well. I myself knew nothing of badgers—among other issues—before I was lobbied about them, and I found that lobbying immensely helpful.
	The Leader of the House seemed to be attempting to inject some ambiguity into the position taken by the voluntary sector, but every piece of correspondence that I have received from charities in the run-up to the debate has expressed deep concern about the implications of the changes that the Bill may introduce. He said that he had met representatives of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations yesterday, and that everything
	was fine, but that is not what those organisations are telling me. For the time being, I remain concerned about the impact of the Bill on charities, which are expressing deep alarm about it.

Lilian Greenwood: Like many other Members, I have received hundreds of e-mails about this issue. One of them came from the director of Self Help Nottingham, Sarah Collis, who wrote:
	“Self Help Groups are often at the real grass roots of campaigning for better services, treatment of the most vulnerable and for fairer treatment of our society’s voiceless.”
	Was she not absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that organisations such as self-help groups may not be able to raise their voices and tell us of their concerns during the year leading up to a general election?

Jenny Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Moreover, it seems that it will not apply only to the run-up to general elections. Elections currently seem to be taking place nearly all the time: European elections, police and crime commissioner elections and local elections. Will the Bill apply to all those elections? If so, it will surely have a constant chilling effect on the activities of some charities.

Paul Farrelly: The Bill appears to be a reaction to undercover newspaper reporting alleging rule-breaking at Westminster, but does my hon. Friend agree that it does not address the issue at all? Is it not in reality an opportunistic attack on the ability of groups in civil society, including trade unions, to deliver a message that might be unwelcome to the Government? Is it not also deeply disappointing that Liberal Democrat members of the coalition have signed up to the Bill, given their historic emphasis on civil liberties?

Jenny Chapman: That is a disappointment, but I have to say that it is not surprising that Liberal Democrat Members may wish to avoid the scrutiny to which such groups might want to subject their record come the next election.
	I speak as a trustee of a charity and as someone who is deeply careful about the way in which the money is spent. I make sure, as it is a trustee’s job to do, that we do not take decisions that may land the charity in any kind of difficulty. We want to be sure that the money that we have worked hard to raise and that it is our job to look after is not misspent on having to buy legal advice or defend ourselves in court.
	I am very concerned about what may happen if there is a charity campaigning on, perhaps, the closure of a hospital and an election candidate decides to support that cause. The charity may not have made the decision to align itself with a political party or candidate, but they somehow become entwined. There will be a loser in that election, as there always is, and what might happen then? Can the other parties who have not been successful in the election mount a challenge? Who would be responsible for paying for the defence of that charity as a result of the outcome of such an election?
	There are very great concerns, therefore, and my sense is that the Leader of the House was not properly cognisant of them before leading this debate today. I can only hope that he becomes more alive to them
	during the course of the Committee stage, although I have to say that I am a bit doubtful of that based on my experience of serving on Committees.
	It would have been far preferable to have had some form of pre-legislative scrutiny, but that is not where we are. I must commend my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on, in effect, creating a process for trying to inject further scrutiny of this Bill.
	There are very real concerns—they are not invented concerns—and I look forward to hearing the Minister trying to deal with some of them when he sums up.

Kevin Barron: Members will know that I chair the Standards Committee, and this morning we agreed a report on this Bill and how it might affect us in our role as Members of Parliament. It was published just half an hour ago at 4.30 pm and I assume it is now in the Vote Office if anyone wants to look at it, but I want to give a brief overview of what we found.
	Shortly after the publication of the Bill, Members received an e-mail from the director of Justice in Financial Services, Joe Egerton. He was concerned about the effect the Bill would have on us. I was contacted by several Members from both sides of the House about this matter, and last week I gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on its investigation into the matter.
	Members will know that there have been concerns about lobbying for many years. As early as 1695 the House resolved that:
	“The Offer of any Money, or other Advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the promoting of any Matter whatsoever, depending, or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high Crime and Misdemeanour, and tends to the Subversion of the Constitution.”
	Successive resolutions have restricted what Members are permitted to do. The current code of conduct states that no Member shall
	“act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House”.
	Indeed, the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members makes it clear that the prohibition on advocacy is not limited to proceedings in the House or approaches to Ministers, but extends to approaches to colleagues and to any servants of the Crown. Consultant lobbying as it is normally understood consists of the acceptance of money in direct return for lobbying activity. As the code of conduct is currently written, this would almost certainly be a breach of the advocacy rule.
	We also note that the requirements for registration of Members’ financial interests are far more detailed than the Bill’s requirements for entries on the register of consultant lobbyists. Although Members are permitted to have outside interests, a Member who carried out “consultant lobbying” would be breaking the current rules of conduct of the House. While we recognise that that might change, we think it is important that problems do not arise.
	As Chair of the Standards Committee, I wrote to the Leader of the House and he responded on 30 August, saying,
	“I know that there has been some misunderstanding about whether the normal activities of Members of Parliament would
	be captured under the definition of consultant lobbying as set out in the Bill. I would therefore like to be quite clear that it is absolutely not the intention of the Bill to do so.”
	Although we welcome that assurance, we still have some reservations about the Bill as drafted. People will know the exemptions it contains, one of which is to protect our use of privilege in this place. That is set out in schedule 1(1), which, in effect, protects the provisions intended to assert the continuing force of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Although some question remains about whether or not that could change in the future, we have no problem with it in the context of this Bill.
	The problem lies where schedule 1 deals with Members’ communications on behalf of their constituents, as the provisions are restrictive. We believe that the main mischief in the Bill’s current drafting is in paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which contains the other exception for Members in Parliament. It states:
	“A Member of Parliament who makes communications within section 2(3) on behalf of a person or persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying.”
	The paragraph goes on to state that
	“‘resident’ has the meaning which it has for the purposes of section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983”.
	Simply put, we believe that the Bill, as drafted, would stop us going beyond representing a constituent who has contacted us about a matter; it would severely restrict me, as a Member of Parliament, in communicating with Ministers on public health matters and on many other things. My Committee’s report recommends that we remove paragraph (2) of schedule 1 altogether and that we add a sub-paragraph to paragraph 6, stating that a reference to payment does not include a reference to the salary of a Member of Parliament.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: We are greatly concerned about this particular issue. As the House will know, there are five constituencies in Northern Ireland for which no Member takes his or her seat in this House. People living in those constituencies often want parliamentary representation and so come to other Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in order to gain it. That matter needs to be given consideration.

Kevin Barron: I am grateful for that intervention, and I entirely agree; my Committee thinks that we are in a dangerous area in respect of doing our job as Members of Parliament and being a voice for our constituents or a voice for wider issues in society. Simply put, if things were restricted in the way that the Bill now envisages, I would be getting my information from the Executive rather than from organisations that can come here to lobby me as a legislator and give me wider knowledge than perhaps the Executive would, on occasion, want me to have when we are legislating. I believe it is important that we address that.
	The registrar of consultant lobbyists is given sweeping powers under this Bill. It is perfectly possible that the courts and the registrar will clarify that the definition does not extend so far, to us, but primary legislation should be unambiguous about such matters—this Bill is exactly the opposite. The letter from the Leader of the House contained an offer in relation to sorting out this problem, and I hope that this will be taken seriously.
	The Committee would like to see it done while the Bill is having its passage through the House of Commons, if we agree, in the next week or so.

Alan Whitehead: When I first looked at the Bill, I initially thought that it was badly drafted. As has been mentioned on several occasions, it has been described as a dog’s breakfast, and I initially thought it was even less nutritionally useful than that. I have now come to a different view. I think it is a well-drafted Bill, because it serves several specific purposes, none of which actually serves the purposes that we think the Bill should serve in terms of cleaning up lobbying, sorting out third-party funding and regulating the way in which the political process works as far as elections and parties are concerned.
	Part 1, as several hon. Members have suggested, ought to be the subject of further discussion and broadening out. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made an excellent speech in which she set out the extent to which lobbying seems to have made a substantial difference in her constituency on a particular issue close to her heart. Of course, such lobbying not only cannot be included under the definitions in the Bill but has been designed out of it. The title of the Bill includes the phrase “transparency of lobbying”, which will mean that people think the Government are doing something to sort it out, but the long title shows that it is only about “consultant lobbying”, excluding 97% of the real lobbying that goes on in and around this place.
	The Liberal Democrats said in their election manifesto that they would:
	“Curb the improper influence of lobbyists by introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, changing the Ministerial Code so that ministers and officials are forbidden from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby”,
	but I am sorry to say that they have ended up as a human shield for a Bill that is trying to minimise the changes that can be made. It is a damage limitation Bill, not a change to lobbying overall. Those hon. Members who think that they will take part in a process over the next couple of weeks whereby we have a dialogue for change have already lost. The Bill seeks to limit the process by which lobbying can be changed, which is what the public expect this House to be dealing with. It does so to such an extent that it is mendacious about its real effect on lobbying.
	Part 2, unlike part 1, was not long in gestation. Indeed, it turned up out of a bright blue sky two days before the House went into the summer recess. Its effect comes from the opposite form of drafting. The drafting of the regulations and amendments is so loose and vague that third-party lobbyists, campaigners and organisations will, as hon. Members have said, probably self-police to ensure that they do not inadvertently get caught by it.
	Do not get me wrong—I think that it is important that we take further action on lobbying of Parliament by third-party groups. Hearing some of the discussions this afternoon, one might think that the process had only started with this Bill, but such groups are subject to considerable regulation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill states that people can be caught retrospectively for undertaking
	action, particularly at a local level, in the year before an election and can be judged for so doing by the Electoral Commission. Believe me, the last thing the commission wants to do is to get involved in political judgments about who has been doing what at a local level and in local elections. Those people will be subject to all sorts of penalties as far as registration is concerned, which they never thought they would have to undertake.
	My view, on balance, is that the drafting is deliberately vague to ensure that pesky groups do not come along to constituencies during an election period and start campaigning on the doorstep about parties that might have a few worries about their approach to the election.

Andy Slaughter: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Bill attacks the most important parts of civil society: charities, non-governmental organisations, pressure groups and trade unions. It might well be unlawful under articles 8 and 11 in schedule 1 the Human Rights Act 1998; but of course, the Government would like to get rid of the Human Rights Act as well. This is a fundamental attack on civil society.

Alan Whitehead: I am tending towards that view. As has been said, the Bill should be a matter of careful thought. Indeed, over a long period there has been substantial and careful thought about third-party campaigning. Nevertheless, the Bill has been the subject of no consultation, not even with the Electoral Commission on how it would carry out this rag-bag of proposals without putting itself in an impossible position. Turning up without consultation or warning is just not the way to organise and regulate third-party campaigning at elections.
	Part 3 seeks further to regulate trade unions to count their membership in a way that they already do. I wonder what that is about. That seems to be dog-whistle politics that says, “We are putting further impediments in the way of trade unions, which are already doing what they are supposed to do, but we are taking action as though they weren’t.”
	Overall, this is a shocking Bill, which goes 100% away from what we should be doing to regulate lobbying and about the process of third-party campaigning and civil society. We really need to take the Bill away and think again. I hope that we will vote to do that today, to get a Bill that we are in favour of—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Natascha Engel: I want to read out something that the Leader of the House said about introducing legislation on lobbying in an Opposition day debate in June:
	“The other way forward is to be clear about the standards expected, based on the Nolan principles, and to ensure that all those who exercise responsibilities—and all those who seek to influence them—are subject to the necessary transparency in their actions and contacts, and held accountable for their actions, so that we can see who is doing what, and why. For those who seek to influence the political system without the necessary transparency, there will be clear sanctions available.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 175.]
	That is beautifully put, but it is not what the Bill does. If it were what the Bill did, most hon. Members would support it.
	On lobbying, we all agree that transparency is absolutely important, but so is the need to raise standards in the lobbying industry and to make those rules apply equally and fairly to everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) just pointed out, 97% of lobbying activity will not be captured by the Bill. The way to improve things would be to ensure that everyone is captured by it and that they abide by an industry code, to make sure that we raise standards and that they apply to absolutely everyone.
	The worrying thing is that, instead of doing that, the Bill will limit what civil society organisations do in campaigning on policies in which they have a legitimate interest, because Governments of any persuasion do not like effective campaigns against them. Whether from business, charities or trade unions, the Government find them embarrassing, and they would much rather silence them. Sometimes, as with the Bill, a Government need to be embarrassed into not doing what is wrong.
	For instance, we might not like what Guido writes about us on his blog, but we should fight any legislation that would curb his ability to do so. It is salient to think how many people are members of the organisation, 38 Degrees: 1.7 million members subscribe to 38 Degrees. For us as political organisations, we collectively do not add up to that many people. For us to dismiss 38 Degrees as an organisation where people press the send button and something inconveniently pops up in our inbox is to dismiss those people who we represent in our constituencies who are legitimately engaged in political activity at a time when we are complaining about how people are disengaging from the political process.
	We need to consider something that Len McCluskey said recently: the combined membership of Unite also adds up to far more than the combined memberships of all registered political parties, and they pay an awful lot more to be members of Unite.

Bob Stewart: As I understand it, 38 Degrees was invited to be briefed by the Government on the Bill but did not turn up, which is sad.

Natascha Engel: I do not see the relevance of 38 Degrees not turning up to a briefing, which would almost certainly have been largely pointless as the Bill would gag the activities that 38 Degrees legitimately wants to undertake in the run-up to a general election.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend think that there might well be a Machiavellian motive in the Government drafting the Bill as they have, which has meant that the great majority of the speeches today have been about the non-existent excesses of charities or trade unions, and that we have neglected the fact that the Bill woefully fails to address the terrible excesses of lobbyists?

Natascha Engel: That is exactly right and it is why the debate today has been a missed opportunity. We would all like to do something quickly about curbing the excesses
	of the wrong kind of lobbying, but the Bill captures the right sort of lobbying—exactly the sort that we as politicians should encourage. We want people to influence the way that we make decisions because it is their democratic right to do so, and those are not the sort of people that we want to criminalise.
	It is on trade unions that I have the greatest problems. In the run-up to the 2005 general election I worked as the trade union liaison officer for the Labour party, and straight after the general election I helped to co-ordinate the last round of political fund ballots, so I know from personal experience just how heavily regulated trade union political activity and financial matters are. They are extremely heavily regulated. Membership records are up to date. Trade unions must have up-to-date membership records; otherwise they would be cutting down their own income. When they ballot members for strike action, they need to know who those members are and where they live, and when they want them to participate in internal elections, it is in their own interest that their membership records are up to date. They are also kept up to date by law.
	Trade unions are democratic and accountable institutions. The Leader of the House implied that trade unions are somehow unaccountable institutions. That is absolutely not so. Any trade union member has the right to opt out of paying into a political fund. Members may choose not to pay the political levy. Every 10 years they are balloted about whether they want a political fund in their trade union. Also, in those ballots every 10 years—we are going into the fourth one now—more than 90% of members who vote are in favour of keeping their political fund. These are massive figures, which we as political parties can only dream of.
	It is important to remember that freedom of affiliation is a fundamental pillar of our democracy. Before we rush into changing the way that these very important institutions work in society, we should reflect more carefully on what the perfectly foreseeable consequences of such legislation could be. The Bill is badly drafted. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) that it may be a deliberate attempt to do something else.

David Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Natascha Engel: I need to finish quickly so that other Members can come in.
	The Bill is badly drafted because it is badly motivated. It is a panicked response to corrupt activities that have been taking place and are already against the law. The current law captures everything that has happened in the past, but it was broken. It needs to be better enforced. The Bill will do nothing to change people’s behaviour, but it will stop non-party campaigners speaking out for or against candidates and policies 12 months before a general election. That worries me.
	I look forward to voting against the Bill tonight. I hope it goes the way of the boundary review, Lords reform, the alternative vote referendum and all the other pieces of gerrymandering dressed up as constitutional reform, and that it ends up in the bin.

Chris Bryant: It is a great shame that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is no longer in the Chamber, because I think that not only did he let his voters and the House down, but—worst of all—he let himself down. He is the arch- patriot, but lobbying is one of the things that Britain gave the world. The only reason it is called lobbying is because of the lobby outside St Stephen’s chapel, where the House of Commons used to sit. That is why when Paris lost the bid to host the 2012 Olympic games, Bertrand Delanoë complained passionately in French that the British had engaged outrageously in lobbying—“doing the lobby,” as he put it.
	A fundamental part of our history, and of the way we have grown up as a democracy, has been the right to turn up at the door of Parliament, or a little further away since this ghastly building was built in the 1850s, and ensure that one’s voice is heard. The age of consent in this country is now 16, but it had been 13 until the late 19th century, because the only thing Josephine Butler could do was come and stand at the door of the House of Commons to lobby, grabbing hold of MPs as they came in to try to persuade them of her point of view, and eventually she won the argument.
	It has been that way for centuries. In 1432 the Brewers’ Company wanted a new licence and a new company charter, so they tried to persuade Parliament. They failed, but then they paid the Lord Chancellor £40 and miraculously got their piece of legislation. In 1455 John Whittocksmead was paid a noble to be a friend for another honourable company in parliament. In 1485 the longstanding battle between the canons and the Poor Knights of Windsor was resolved when the Clerk of the House was given a very sumptuous breakfast to persuade him to get a Bill through. The Doorkeeper was given tuppence, the Serjeant at Arms was given a noble, the Speaker was given six pounds, six shillings and eightpence, and the King was given £100.
	Quite rightly, as the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee said earlier, we have outlawed receiving money in return for putting forward a case in this House, but that is not the case in the other House. I suggest that many of the problems relating to lobbying and to corruption in our parliamentary system stem from the other end of the Corridor, because many people pursue their commercial interests through how they vote in that Chamber, which I think is inappropriate.
	My personal experience is twofold. First, I was the BBC’s lobbyist in Brussels. That must make me the Daily Mail’s arch-hateperson—the BBC, Brussels and lobbying all in one—but I was proud of the fact that, by persuading MEPs and Commission members, we managed to see off Rupert Murdoch’s attempt, ironically enough, to make Brussels determine that the BBC’s licence fee was unfair state aid. Murdoch using Brussels to try to make that case was slightly odd. I am delighted that we won that battle by convincing people through legitimate lobbying.

Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would tilt even further an already unlevel playing field? At the next election the vast majority of the press, including the Daily Mail, will support the Conservative party, yet the Bill will seek to restrain, for example, the National Union of Students and the education unions from reminding the Government of their record on university tuition fees.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there is already a rake in the political system when it comes to money, the Bill will simply increase it and make it more difficult for ordinary members of the public to have a say in the political life of this country.
	Secondly, when the Mental Health Act 2007 was going through Parliament I was a Back-Bench Member on the Government side. I did not just want to be voting fodder in Committee; I wanted to understand the issues as we went through them. They were very complex and I am not a mental health or medical specialist. The fact that all the mental health charities got together and paid someone to organise them, creating an alliance and then coming to members of the Bill Committee to argue their case, informed us and made sure that we could be far more creatively involved in the Committee than would have been the case.
	My worry is that the Bill will mean that those organisations, which created an alliance because none of them had a large lobbying department of its own, would not be on a level playing field with the big pharmaceutical companies that also came to lobby us—it was legitimate that they did so. The small charities will have to declare that they have effectively set themselves up as a lobbying consultant, but the pharmaceutical companies, which have vast arrays of lawyers and in-house operatives, will not have to declare, and that is fundamentally unfair. I hope that is an unintended consequence of the way that the Bill is drafted, but I am not so sure.
	An essential part of our democracy in general elections is the business when we get all those irritating e-mails and letters asking, “What is your position on the following issues?” Homosexuality was mentioned earlier by an Irish Member, but there are many others—animal welfare, abortion, euthanasia, or whatever issue people want to take up. They will then say to the public, “Look, this is how people are saying they are intending to vote on these individual issues; we would prefer it if you voted for the following people who have a three-star record on those issues as we see them.” My worry is that, yet again, this Government Bill will prevent that important part of the democratic process in this country, which will mean that we have a poorer political process.
	The Bill fails on many counts. It excludes the in-house teams and the lawyers. As far as I can see, schedule 1 excludes nearly everybody apart from the poor organisations that decide to create an alliance and the charities. It will dismantle the voluntary system that we already have because there will be no incentive to keep it going. It will catch the charitable coalitions. It will scare off charities from engaging with political debate. It does nothing about the abuse of parliamentary passes down at the other end of the building. Much of the language is highly nebulous. On the anniversary of Cromwell’s death, it is perhaps ironic that the Government have united the Royal British Legion, every single think-tank in the land, Help the Aged and Guido Fawkes in opposition to the Bill. I agree with them.

Tom Harris: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I felt that I was listening to a trailer for his forthcoming biography of Parliament, and I am now even more enthused about buying my copy.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reference the fact that there are to be two volumes of the said work. He will be making two purchases rather than one.

Tom Harris: As you might say, Mr Speaker, it is now on the record.
	I would not want the House to believe that I have spent my whole time during this debate reading tweets, but it would be appropriate to mention at the outset that Iain Martin of The Daily Telegraph recently posted a blog entitled, “How did David ‘Big Society’ Cameron end up sanctioning a bonkers bill that bosses around charities?” I hope that it will become required reading for the Leader of the House, his deputy and all Government Members who plan to vote for this Bill. The Leader of the House has told us that it will not have the effect that many Labour Members have insisted that it will. He has a long way to go if he is still trying to persuade Telegraph journalists.
	In the run-up to the 2010 general election, an organisation called Power 2010 took it upon itself to campaign personally against me and five other Members of the House because we had the barefaced cheek to have long records of opposing nonsense like electoral reform. It took out national newspaper advertising and even came to my constituency to launch a specific campaign directed at me, which was very entertaining. We got lots of its leaflets and plastered them all over my campaign office—not my publicly paid-for constituency office. That had the effect of increasing my share of the vote to above 50% for the first time since 2001, and my majority went up to 12,600.
	I could therefore welcome the Bill, because if it becomes an Act that kind of campaign specifically targeting individual MPs will be outlawed, but I do not want that to happen. For a start, such a campaign is perfectly democratic. If people want to spend money faffing about and wittering on about nonsense like electoral reform, that is entirely their business and they are welcome to it. It does not have any impact on or relevance to my constituents, but if people want to spend their money on it, that is fine. Secondly, there is the effect that it had on my majority.
	One of the many problems with this Bill is that it affects aspects that do not need redress and ignores aspects that do need redress. If the Deputy Leader of the House casts his mind back to last year, he will remember that the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had a little bit of a kerfuffle regarding his special adviser, Adam Smith. It was clear that News International had lobbied Adam Smith to try to get a change of policy from the Government with regard to its attempt to take over Sky. We all remember the drama that ensued in this House. This Bill would not affect such a situation in the slightest, because only permanent secretaries and Ministers are now affected.
	Before I came to this House I used to lobby for an organisation called Strathclyde Passenger Transport. I knew then, and I know even more now, that if I wanted to affect policy I should speak not to the Minister, but to their Parliamentary Private Secretary or SpAd. Those are the people with a direct link to the Minister and the policy-making process. This Bill does absolutely nothing.
	The Bill is an obnoxious piece of proposed legislation: it is illiberal, anti-democratic and badly drafted. I am left with the conclusion that it could only have come
	from the Liberal Democrats. I have on my phone—I know you do not like such gimmicks, Mr Deputy Speaker—a photograph of the leader of the Liberal Democrats holding a pledge card during the last general election that reads:
	“I pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees”.
	He is flanked by the then Lib Dem candidate for Cambridge, who has a smile on his face, so I guess it was before he was elected to this place. At that time, the Liberal Democrats presumably had no objection at all to a nationwide campaign by the National Union of Students targeting specific individuals to support its stance on tuition fees, but something tells me that they do not want the NUS to lead a similar campaign next time in response to their decision to do a complete U-turn on their tuition fees policy. That is what this Bill is about. It might as well have been called the “Defend Liberals in Marginal Seats Bill”, because that is what it will do.

Mike Thornton: Will the hon. Gentleman read out a specific part of the Bill that would outlaw the things he is saying it will? It is very interesting that I have not seen any such parts.

Tom Harris: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only one minute and 57 seconds left, so I am sure he can find that himself.
	If exactly the same Bill had been proposed by the previous Labour Government, not a single Lib Dem would have voted for it, and when the next Labour Government move to abolish the legislation—by that time I hope the Lib Dems will have retaken their traditional and rightful place on the Opposition Benches—I suspect that not a single Lib Dem MP will object to the repeal of the Act.
	On 5 June I challenged the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I asked him whether it was when an undercover reporter pretending to be a lobbyist entrapped an MP that he decided that now was the right time to launch an all-out attack on the trade unions. Where is the demand for new curbs and new regulations on trade unions? Why are Conservative and Liberal MPs so frightened of trade unions? I have been a member of a trade union my whole working life and am proud to be a member of Unite. For me that is a matter of pride; for many workers it is a matter of necessity. Why do the Conservatives still see trade unions as the enemy within? This part of the Bill simply does not need to be there. Where has the demand come from? What are they so scared of? Is it now un-British for there to be any kind of fierce political debate during election campaigns?
	If the Leader of the House is right and this Bill will not result in the gagging of third parties, what is the Bill for? Either the behaviour of third parties in recent years has been unacceptable and needs to be addressed, or it has been perfectly acceptable and does not need to be addressed, in which case there is no point to this appalling Bill.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). Like him, I welcome lobbying from constituents and organisations, whether they agree with me or not. I thank the hundreds of constituents who
	have e-mailed me in recent weeks about this issue, Syria, the badger cull and so many other things. It makes life difficult for us, but life should be difficult for us, because the decisions we make in this place can be of the utmost gravity and have an impact on the people of these islands and beyond these shores. Never was that more clear than last week, so I was very pleased to receive so many e-mails scrutinising my thought process and my decision. On gay marriage, too, many organisations and individuals in my constituency told me how disappointed they were that I supported that legislation. However, it meant that when I walked through the Lobby in support of that Bill, I was unshakably certain that I was doing the right thing. That is the healthy and, at times, slightly humbling process that we all go through.
	I hope that right now the National Union of Students is calculating how many pairs of flip-flops it can buy before the general election. I hope that animal rights groups and the proponents and opponents of gay marriage are all getting ready to remind our constituents how we have voted. If we have treated the process seriously, we have nothing to fear from that.
	I was tempted to quote Owen Jones, who wrote an excellent piece in The Independent yesterday, but I thought I would have a better chance of getting the Government to listen if I used the commentary of the Electoral Commission and many other organisations.
	This is a bad Bill, but we should not be surprised about that, given the form of the Leader of the House. This is a man who drives policy through with a finger in both ears, refusing to listen. He should reflect today on the process that he went through with the Health and Social Care Bill. When he finally took his fingers out of his ears and listened, it was a better Bill. I would like to know whether he agrees with that. I want the Lib Dems to think about what puppets they were during the passage of that legislation. They sat on the original Public Bill Committee and voted down Labour amendments, and then found themselves having to support the same amendments in the name of the Government in the Committee of the recommitted Bill. I hope that this time the Lib Dems will do the right thing. When they see amendments that will improve the Bill, I hope they will support them. Let us make this a better Bill, because there is certainly lots of room for improvement.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) completely missed the point today. I am always amazed when he rises from a prone position to speak, as if using a secreted system of hydraulics. He has completely missed the point on this Bill. Even the Electoral Commission has said that defining electoral purposes is extremely difficult. If the independent regulator says that it will be difficult to reach a definition, what hope is there for the Bill in its current form? The Electoral Commission also says that the Bill is devoid of policy aims. It is not clear what the Bill is trying to do. In fact, it is so directionless that I am surprised the Deputy Prime Minister has not turned up to close the debate for the Government.
	I ask everybody in the House to think about the people who are involved in the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and others have spoken about the volunteers who are worried what the Bill will mean for them. For Scotland, the limit for registering will be £2,000 and the limit on expenditure will be £35,000.
	That is the cost of one member of staff—one political communications officer—in a voluntary organisation. What will that do to the quality of debate in Scotland?
	The marriage of the Government parties is a rocky one. It is perhaps not surprising that what we have today is the worst kind of shotgun legislation. The Bill has been rushed through at the last minute. I do not know why that is. I do not know whether the Government mean the Bill to be bad or do not know that it is bad. Either possibility is undesirable. We do not have time to debate it or scrutinise it properly in this place. There has been no public consultation. Even worse, there will be no time for voluntary organisations to prepare for the legislation coming into force before the next general election. In Scotland, where there will be a referendum on independence in 2014, the legislation will make many third-party organisations very nervous about speaking out. That is to be regretted. It is not what we need in Scotland and it is not helpful.
	I will close by quoting David McColgan of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations:
	“It is universally accepted that democracy and public policy right across the United Kingdom is richer when all corners of society participate and feel they are free to do so. This bill deters engagement. It deters dissenters and it deters open reasoned debate.”
	The Government have to get their fingers out of their ears and improve this Bill.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am glad we have the opportunity to debate the influence of third parties and non-elected actors on our political process, and I think the regulation of such activities needs to be reviewed. So far, however, the Bill is proving a flawed means of doing that, and we all agree that there needs to be much greater transparency of lobbyists. I echo concerns already raised about the missed opportunity to include a code of conduct in that process, and I cannot help but observe and echo observations by other hon. Members that not a single lobbying scandal from recent years would have been in any way affected had this Bill been enacted.
	Part 1 of the Bill, wholly inadequate as it is, relates to matters that are largely devolved in Scotland, so in the short time available I will address part 2. The measures in part 2 are particularly deeply flawed, and in spite of all the assurances we have heard from the Leader of the House, they will place undue restrictions on the ability of campaigning organisations to raise legitimate concerns about public policy issues. Although it is not a declarable interest, I feel I ought to put on record my background working in public affairs and campaigning in the voluntary sector, as well as my past directorships of charities, both large and small. I am also a member of the Electoral Commission parliamentary advisory group.
	My key point is that an active, politically engaged, challenging civil society is a hallmark of democracy and the lifeblood of live political culture, every bit as much as a free press or free and fair elections. I have grave concerns that a side effect of the Bill will be to restrict the discursive space where citizens can make a fuss about public policies that affect their lives. In Scotland, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) outlined, there has been considerable concern about how the Bill
	will restrict perfectly legitimate activities. Martin Sime, the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, has gone so far as to say it is an
	“assault on…charities’ right to campaign”.
	That is strong language from organisations that are not usually prepared to put their heads above the parapet so quickly.
	As legislators and decision makers we are often challenged in the ways that citizens want us to meet their expectations. They share their experiences and views with us in ways that immeasurably enhance the democratic process, and any dilution of their ability to engage with us and hold us to account for our decisions is a wholly retrograde step. Sometimes that can be uncomfortable for us in the Chamber and in Parliaments and council chambers around these islands, but without the ability to raise concerns through collective efforts, our citizens will be deprived of important avenues of engagement in the political process and our democracy will be immeasurably poorer.
	It is important to remember that campaigning civil society organisations that are also charities are already highly regulated by the Charity Commission, the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. Charitable organisations are already prevented from campaigning in a politically partisan way, and during election periods they are already restricted in the kinds of activities they can undertake. In my experience, charities take those responsibilities extremely seriously and are careful about the public statements and activities they undertake ahead of elections. The proposals, however, go much further. Existing legislation on charities is working well, and we should not be looking to increase the regulatory burden on charities through the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill would do exactly that, and serious concerns have been raised about the unworkability of the proposals and the changes to definitions they would involve. I have listened carefully to those on the Front Benches this afternoon.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the hon. Lady agree that we also need clarity about coalitions of charities—they may be experts on this—and what happens when individual members in a network engage in political campaigning?

Eilidh Whiteford: That is an important point and I will return to a concrete example from my experience and highlight the work of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition in Scotland, which I think enabled and facilitated cross-party support for the passage of a world-leading piece of legislation—the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. It is exactly such campaigns that will be in jeopardy and might simply not happen, if we take the Electoral Commission’s evidence seriously.
	Another concern is that a much wider range of activities will be regulated, including organisations’ media activities. The explanatory notes state:
	“The definition of ‘for election purposes’ does not rely solely on the intent of the third party; the effect of the expenditure must also be considered.”
	Such spending can be controlled
	“regardless of whether incurring the expenditure”
	is
	“intended…for another purpose.”
	That belies the Government’s statement, made to try to assuage hon. Members, that the measure will not have a restrictive effect—it clearly will have such an effect.
	The Electoral Commission has raised some of the most serious concerns about the Bill, including the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. I cannot help but believe that pre-legislative scrutiny would have gone an awfully long way to address problems with the Bill. However, in pointing out the obvious—that campaigning organisations are not like political parties—the commission highlights the difficulties it foresees in the discretion it will have to interpret what activity will be regulated as political campaigning. It has made it clear that it does not believe it is appropriate for it to have such wide-ranging discretion. In any case, it is concerned that the wide definition in the Bill and its explanatory notes of “election purposes” will be open to legal challenge.
	I know from my involvement in charities that they are often very risk-averse—other hon. Members with extensive involvement in charities have said the same. They will shy away from anything that might embroil them in difficult legal wrangling and threaten their charitable purposes under their charitable status. The measure will lead to a risk-averse and self-censoring culture among charitable organisations. Also, no hon. Member has so far mentioned the capacity of the Electoral Commission to deal with the new layer of bureaucracy.
	It is important for the Government to address the regulation of third-party spending at elections, but they must do so in a coherent way. Part 2 of the Bill goes much further than their stated intentions. I hope they take on board the concerns hon. Members have highlighted in the debate about the duplication and spiralling of regulation.
	I have not had time to go into the referendum in the Scotland and the regulations that have been agreed. However, I hope the Deputy Leader of the House takes the opportunity when winding-up to address that and other issues, and that he affirms the positive role of an outspoken civil society.

Anne McGuire: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I echo her comments about the denial on the Government Benches that the Bill will be restrictive. One has only to look at clause 26, and even the explanatory notes by implication identify that the Bill will be restrictive, because the Government are extending and broadening types of expenditure that can be regulated. The most damning comment in the explanatory notes is this one:
	“regardless of whether those incurring the expenditure intended it (or also intended it) for another purpose.”
	Therefore, a small local charity’s campaign on a local issue could be taken up by a candidate in a general election, but before we can say, “Bob’s your uncle,” the charity finds itself in breach of the legislation.
	Like many other hon. Members, I spent a great deal of my working life before I became an MP in the voluntary sector. I was the deputy director Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. With the greatest respect to the Deputy Leader of the House, who will wind up the debate for the Government, the Bill, and
	certainly part 2, is predicated on a misunderstanding of the role of charities in our society. There has hardly been a piece of social legislation in the past 150 years that has not had the involvement of charities or voluntary sector organisations. Some of the pressure and some of the great reforms have come from charities. I fear that the Bill reveals the Government’s tunnel vision about what charities and voluntary sector organisations are about. And we should make the distinction between charities and voluntary organisations, which are not always exactly the same.
	The big society seems to be about services, not involvement in public debate. If the Government really believe in a big society, they should be encouraging charities and voluntary organisations to be involved in our public discourse. There is sometimes an arrogance among full-time politicians. They assume that they are the only people who are interested in politics, that somehow politics is our particular preserve. The reality is that civic society has proved, over many years, that it has a significant role to play in our public discourse.
	Independence is crucial to the voluntary sector. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) imply that because the National Council for Voluntary Organisations takes money from Government, it should not be independent and should not be allowed to express the opinions it wants to express.

Brian H Donohoe: May I ask one question about my right hon. Friend’s position, and the position of any Member standing at the next general election? When a charity turns up at a hustings and issues leaflets, that will become illegal. How, in those circumstances, will a candidate get to know about that charity and take forward its work?

Anne McGuire: The other thing that is even more disturbing is that if my hon. Friend happens to say that he supports a particular charity and something it is promoting, and the charity happens to put that on a leaflet, along with perhaps three of the four or five other candidates, it might find itself in the same position. The alternative to that is that it may well just put out a list of people who support their objectives. It is just a nonsense and a mishmash. I am frankly astonished that the Liberal Democrats, who made and built up their reputation as community activists, are going along with this proposed legislation. [interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House can sneer all he likes. This is denying the heritage of the Liberal Democrats, who were forever telling us they were community politicians.

Mike Thornton: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can tell me this. That is the law at the moment and the law is not changing, so why is she objecting to it? If she objected to it before, why did she not want it changed before?

Anne McGuire: I have already pointed out that clause 26 broadens the definition, but if it is the law at the moment why are we wasting time and paper on the Bill? That is the question that the Deputy Leader of the House needs to pick up on when he addresses the House.
	I spent a few days at a conference in Sarajevo not long after Bosnia and Herzegovina became independent. Speaking to the embryonic voluntary sector organisations there—harking back to what the hon. Member for North East Somerset said—I explained that one of the great things about the UK voluntary sector was that it was accepted as independent: it could express its views in the way it wanted. We now have an implied threat or demand that organisations that take money from Government should have their independence curtailed.
	The Bill gives considerable discretion to the Electoral Commission, which is among the groups most critical of this element of the Bill. I put it to the Minister that that causes its own conflict. The Charity Commission, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland regulate charities and decide whether their objectives are appropriate. Now we are bringing in the Electoral Commission. Under the proposed legislation, if the Charity Commission says that it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation to pursue a particular line of policy and the Electoral Commission says that it is not sure, which body will regulate the charity? Where does the charity go for a definitive statement on the pursuit of its charitable objectives? I hope the Minister has a lot to say when he stands up, as opposed to the chuntering from the Front Bench we have had in the past 10 minutes or so. The Electoral Commission has recognised this conflict, saying:
	“we do not think it is appropriate for us to have a wide discretion over what activity is covered by the rules”.
	The Electoral Commission, who are the experts, is asking the Government not to put it in the position of having to regulate what activity is appropriate.
	I can speak from personal experience. When I was the deputy director of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, we were also involved in all sorts of political campaigning against some of the things we thought were wrong. I was also the candidate against the Conservative Secretary of State, now Lord Forsyth, who funded my organisation. Should my organisation therefore have said, “Hey, wait a minute, Anne—I don’t know whether you can continue in your job”? What would be the position then? Would everything that I did have been misinterpreted by this piece of ludicrous legislation?
	As I think one of my colleagues said earlier, the Government have united the most disparate group of people against this Bill—the TUC, LabourList, Conservative Home, the TaxPayers Alliance, Guido Fawkes and Owen Jones. Frankly, they should almost be congratulated on building that alliance against this ludicrous piece of legislation. Why are the Government so frightened of the charitable and voluntary sector in this country? If they are just legislating for things that already happen, why are we all here? This is a piece of arrogance from the Government. They do not understand the independence of the sector and they are trying to curtail its activities.

Thomas Docherty: I feel that we are almost repeating the debate we had in January, when I introduced my private Member’s Bill on lobbyists—I think today’s turnout is slightly higher than it perhaps was on that Friday. I am sorry that the Government have not reflected on that debate or on last
	year’s excellent report by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and have introduced this dreadful Bill.
	Owing to time constraints, I will speak about part 1, but, in the interests of transparency, let me put on record the fact that my wife works for a charity in Scotland and is therefore indirectly affected by the proposed legislation.
	Fred Michel, Adam Werritty, Fiji-gate, MPs for hire like cabs, peers for questions—all are scandals that have blotted Parliament and politics in the past four years. It is not an unreasonable test to ask the Government which, if any, of those scandals this Bill seeks to prevent from happening again. The harsh reality is that part 1 of the Bill would have avoided none of them, because the Government have drafted it so narrowly—I suspect deliberately—that the only type of activity covered is direct communication with a Minister of the Crown and a permanent secretary. Therefore, if a lobbyist or even a consultant lobbyist communicates with a private secretary—I would suggest that the Prime Minister’s private secretary has a great deal of influence, perhaps more than the Deputy Prime Minister, on certain areas of policy, such as tobacco packaging and other things—that will not be covered. If, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, a lobbyist speaks to a senior official in the Department for Transport, that is okay, provided it is not the permanent secretary. If a lobbyist speaks to the special adviser, as Fred Michel clearly was in the News International scandal, that would okay. That is a failure of the Bill; it is one that I cannot support this evening.

Anne Main: For clarification, may I point out that I was referring to a private lunch with the Secretary of State for Transport?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I intended to come to the point she made. It is an important point and one that I raised this morning. I had a meeting with the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). It was very civil and I got a cup of coffee out of it, but I do not think we made much progress in agreeing on very much.
	The problems with the Bill are so fundamental that even the impact assessment is wrong. The civil servants who drafted the Bill—who, ironically, would not be covered by the lobbying Bill they are seeking to introduce—have failed to understand the lobbying industry. That is not surprising, given that they failed to meet anybody, from either side of the argument, in the last 12 months. They have not met Spinwatch, Unlock Democracy, Charter88, the charities or the Association of Professional Political Consultants—I could go on. Those civil servants have met nobody. They have stuck their fingers in their ears and produced a Bill that no one in the industry or on either side of the argument is prepared to support. That is a shocking state of affairs.
	The civil servants who drafted the Bill have also misunderstood how to calculate the number of lobbyists. Their impact assessment claims that there are between 800 and 1,000 lobbying firms, but the evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee shows
	that there are fewer than 100. So the £500,000 that it will cost to set up the register, and the £200,000 a year running costs, will have to be met by 50 or 60 firms. Great free-marketeers and defenders of business such as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) should join us in the Lobby tonight, because the burden that that will place on the companies caught by the legislation, many of which are small businesses, is ridiculous and disproportionate. The Bill will do nothing to solve that problem.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If one takes a free-market view, the conclusion is not that we should have more regulation of many more people, as the hon. Gentleman wants to have.

Thomas Docherty: I believe in a level playing field. It should not matter whether someone works in-house or elsewhere, or whether they work for Rio Tinto or Oxfam, for Bell Pottinger or CAFOD. The same set of rules should apply equally to all of them. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the rules should apply to all those who are paid—handsomely in some cases—to carry out this work.
	I want to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for St Albans, and to take it slightly further. As I said to Ministers this morning, there was a case recently in which a Minister of the Crown met a third-party consultant—a commercial lobbyist, as I think they are called—to discuss a planning application in their constituency. The Government seem to define that as a private discussion. If that consultant had chosen to raise other issues at the meeting, that activity would not be covered by the Bill because the consultant would say, “I am meeting the Minister not in their role as a Minister of the Crown but in their role as a Member of Parliament. I just happened to raise a general issue of Government policy that might be of interest and over which the Minister might have some influence.” That would be ludicrous.
	For that reason, if for no other, the rules should apply to all parliamentarians. Ministers of the Crown—whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons—are all parliamentarians. Extending the rules would avoid any double standards. Many Members of Parliament are members, and chairs, of influential Select Committees. They have a greater amount of influence in shaping the early stages of Government policy than those who serve as Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. Anyone who has read Chris Mullin’s excellent book, “A View from the Foothills”, will remember the ceaseless slog of the life of an Under-Secretary. I see a Parliamentary Private Secretary smiling at that suggestion. Select Committee Chairs are hugely influential. Similarly, Members of Parliament who sit on Bill Committees help to shape our legislation. They are the people who should be protected from unscrupulous lobbyists, and if we did that we would provide the public with far greater confidence in the process. The rules have to apply to all those who exert influence.
	The rules cannot only be about those who directly communicate with those in a position of power. In all of my eight years as a lobbyist, in the House and in consultancy, I met a Minister on two occasions, at most. I used to advise others on who in the Government, in Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament it was best to
	go and see, on the correct issues on which to press them, and on what their arguments should be. The Bill does not cover any of the people who do that.
	The Bill is so narrow that it does not even cover those consultants who sit in the room during meetings, because a person has to actually communicate with a Minister or permanent secretary in order to be covered. The consultant might have done all the preparatory work and the strategy, and we have all taken meetings that have been facilitated by the consultant, but they might not actually be in communication with the Minister or the permanent secretary. For example, if a consultant were to contact the diary secretary of the Leader of the House, that would still not be covered by the Bill.
	This is a dreadful Bill. It is not worthy of further progress and I hope that the House will reject it and ask the Government to come back and do their homework correctly.

Margaret Ritchie: Very few people disagree about the need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry or the need for a universal register of all professional lobbyists backed by a code of conduct and sanctions. There is, however, a real fear that this Bill does not go far enough to prevent unscrupulous lobbying activity by commercial interests yet introduces completely unreasonable restraints on charities and civil society.
	First, there must be a concern at the fact that this Bill is being put through Parliament with such speed and haste, when detailed pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with the affected parties has not yet taken place. Secondly, this Bill was meant to concentrate on the negative impact of non-transparent commercial lobbying, but it seems instead to be being used as a Trojan horse to introduce a range of measures that will impair the functioning of civil society and third-sector organisations. It will change the nature of campaigning on important issues that matter to members of the public in the run-up to elections, whether they be about welfare reform, health, education, community care, international development or foreign policy.
	I want to concentrate on part 2 because its provisions may well gag and restrict the work of charities and trade unions that have a democratic right not only to participate in these important debates and issues in the year of the run-up to elections, but to inform wider society and hear and listen to its views on social and economic issues. If this Bill is enacted unamended, I fear it will not only restrict the role of charitable bodies, but have a severe impact on wider civic society, which will be prevented from communicating and engaging directly with politicians and political parties. This could make more members of the public even more disillusioned and isolated from the democratic political process at a time when the number of people not registering their mandate is increasing. The vote is gradually reducing. Do we want that? Do we want to marginalise people from the democratic process? Do we want to marginalise those members of civic society who undertake such an important role for us? After all, the Prime Minister has told us in recent years that he wants to underpin “the big society”. By virtue of this very Bill, however, he will undermine both the big society and civic society, making more members of the public disillusioned. This Bill is, I feel, a blunt tool to silence the important campaigns of charities.
	One has to ask why the Government are seeking to gag charitable and other organisations. Is there a Machiavellian reason? Is it to ensure greater transparency or is it to close down debate on any issues in advance of a general election, ensuring the return of the Government party or parties to continued power and control? To me and my party, that is censorship and is anti-democratic.
	Civic society has made an enormous contribution to an emerging democracy in Northern Ireland. Prior to our new democratic structures of government, it was civic society—along with many of us in the political classes—that helped to identify the issues and work with people who felt marginalised, informing the Government and political parties of the issues, whether they were about welfare, community care or wider health and education issues. It was very much the conscience of society. Do the Government want to silence those members of civic society who were so well equipped to deal with those issues?
	In a former life, I was the Minister for Social Development in the Northern Ireland Executive. I was responsible for establishing the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and responsible for the voluntary and community sector. Are we trying to stultify the work of the Charity Commission? We need to think about those issues, which is why we shall vote against Second Reading tonight.

Stephen Doughty: This truly is a rotten Bill with sinister and underhand objectives.
	Let me begin by placing on record my past work with a range of charities, coalitions and trade unions in campaigning on domestic and international poverty. I certainly would have described myself as a lobbyist and a campaigner, and I am proud to have worked on those campaigns—in some instances with Members of Parliament in previous roles, such as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).
	I am still in contact with many former colleagues who are deeply concerned about the Bill. Moreover, I can safely say that I have received one of my largest ever postbags since becoming an MP, from constituents of all political persuasions and none. They are deeply critical of the Government’s attempt to muzzle civil society and close down democratic debate while failing to get to the heart of the lack of transparency and undue influence that are present in some parts of the lobbying sector. It is no wonder that #gagginglaw is trending on Twitter today.
	At times, the campaigns that we all face can be challenging, frustrating and even, dare I say, irritating, but that is exactly as it should be. The power and vibrancy of civil society, trade unions and other coalitions of interests of ordinary people in this country are one of our greatest strengths.
	In 2005 I was a campaigner with World Vision, one of the world’s leading Christian international development and relief organisations. Like so many other organisations, we had played a crucial role in the Make Poverty History campaign, and I truly believe that our work had an impact on the willingness of the United Kingdom Government, and other G8 Governments, to take crucial steps in cancelling debt and increasing our support for
	the world’s poorest countries. Later in 2005, I travelled to Malawi to speak at a gathering of campaigners from countries across southern and central Africa. I shared with them our experiences of that campaign here in the UK, and told them what we had achieved together. I explained that we had been able to secure cross-party support and consensus, given the focus of a general election that was taking place that year.
	I recall that many of my colleagues at that conference, from countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and Kenya, were amazed not only by what we had achieved, but by how freely and openly people were able to debate and engage with others in Britain. They were amazed by the fact that ordinary civil society, churches and citizens’ groups had access to the highest levels of Government and Parliament, and by the fact that, while that access and openness might not be funded to the same extent as traditional big interests such as business, energy and defence companies, it was at least on a par with them in principle.

Tom Clarke: I am very interested by what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that the laudable achievement, or near-achievement, of the target of expenditure of 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid would probably never have been possible without the pressure that was exerted by agencies such as Oxfam, which put their views by focusing on every candidate in every constituency?

Stephen Doughty: I entirely agree. That is exactly what happened, and, as I have said, it involved all parties. The campaigners from those other countries who did not benefit from the same open, democratic ways, and from the strengths of civil society, found it particularly striking. They shared with me their experiences of fighting for rights in places such as Zimbabwe. I am sorry to say this, but the Bill has a whiff of Zimbabwe about it. [Interruption.] It appears to be nothing more than a cynical and ill-thought-out attempt to clamp down on the challenge that is presented to all of us when we stand for Parliament.

Andrew Lansley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer this question. In 2005, when he conducted his campaign with World Vision, electoral law required any expenditure for electoral purposes to be registered. Was any part of that expenditure registered for electoral purposes, or did he not seek to promote the electoral success of any party or candidate in his campaign, in which case all the expenditure would have remained outwith the regulatory structure?

Stephen Doughty: The real issue is that many charities will observe the lack of clarity in the Bill, and, unable to gain access to the legal advice and expertise that is needed to deal with it, will effectively be muzzled. That is what is really going on: a clampdown on charities and community organisations. At the same time, the Bill does not deal with the likes of Lynton Crosby—the rich and already powerful members of society.
	As I have said, the main issue is that the Bill does nothing to clamp down on the activities of the big lobbying industry and make them more transparent.
	In fact, it excludes most of the lobbyists and most of the lobbying, which strikes me as completely pointless. We have all heard how the Bill will capture only 1% of the meetings organised with lobbyists. The idea that the only crucial lobbying that goes on is in meetings with Ministers and permanent secretaries is, frankly, ridiculous. Without wanting to be disrespectful, it is often the least experienced and most junior officials and advisers in Government who are the most susceptible to undue influence, whereas, in contrast, most of the Ministers—of all parties—and most of the permanent secretaries whom I have dealt with have taken a critical-thinking approach to the lobbying and approaches they receive, whether from Oxfam, the CBI or other interest groups.
	We have heard that Spinwatch has called the Bill “a sham”, and that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has said that it
	“would not even come close to preventing the alleged breaches of parliamentary standards that have seen this legislation rushed through.”
	The Bill does nothing to open up this part of the industry, which is the majority of it, or to make it more transparent. That makes it all the more sinister that the latter parts of the Bill could result in shutting down the type of influence and activity—the raising of voices on behalf of ordinary people and causes lacking in money, power and existing relationships—that is needed to balance out those big influences.
	We have heard from many colleagues on both sides of the House of the many organisations and causes that are worried about this Bill. I know from personal experience how seriously charities and campaign coalitions take their existing obligations. I believe they already often err on the side of caution, rather than risk being seen to be operating in any way that could open them up to allegations of partisanship or undue influence. I am therefore very worried on a number of fronts about the ill-thought-out and unclear provisions in part 2.
	First, staff costs and overheads could be included in what has to be declared, meaning that larger charities might have to pull back to avoid hitting the lower spending limits set out in the Bill. Secondly, I am deeply concerned about the possible impact on smaller charities, a number of whom have commented during the course of this debate about how they will not be able to cope, from a legal perspective, when they are less well resourced. I was lucky to have the support of an excellent and experienced legal department when such questions arose in Oxfam, making sure that we met our legal objectives. That is simply not available to many smaller charities and community organisations and that will result, essentially, in their muzzling.

Alok Sharma: It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should paint the ridiculous picture that this Bill will somehow make us like Zimbabwe. That is an awful thing to say. I spent some time this weekend with people from Zimbabwe who have really suffered, and it is outrageous of the hon. Gentleman to make that comment.

Stephen Doughty: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is this: why, therefore, have the NCVO and the 50 charities that signed a letter, and all the others who are speaking out today, made the points that they have? They have been very clear about their views on this.

Alok Sharma: rose—

Stephen Doughty: I will not give way again as I do not have enough time and other Members want to speak.
	I also remain deeply concerned and confused about the differential impact this Bill will have in the nations of the UK, as we have heard from other colleagues, and especially in Wales, subject as we are now to multiple election cycles, different periods of purdah and regulated periods. We have also heard concerns about the run-up to the referendum vote. Can Ministers provide any assurance that campaigning by civil society and charities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be hampered by these measures even more than they appear likely to hamper that work in England?
	Finally, I cannot let pass the opportunity to add my voice of concern to those who see the trade union-related provisions of this Bill as nothing more than a naked attempt—uncoincidentally, just before the TUC—to make a crude and partisan attack on those organisations. In particular, I want to draw the House’s attention to the concerns expressed by the Wales TUC, which has spoken out very clearly this week. It is deeply concerned that not only could the Wales TUC conference cease to be lawful in 2014, but that this Bill’s provisions could undermine the special social partnerships the Wales TUC has with the Welsh Government, as enshrined in the Government of Wales Acts, and that it could damage their anti-racism campaigning work in constituencies across Wales from May 2014. That point has been made by Hope not hate and many other organisations.
	In conclusion, in the aftermath of a week in which we have seen Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account very much enhanced, regardless of what side of the argument we came down on, it would truly be a tragedy to see the restriction of the voice and opportunity for influence of millions of people across the country— whether by postcard, protest, tweet or e-mail—in our political system and our civil society. There are some other agendas at work here. We had a whiff of that from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Some Government Members and some in other parts of our society would like to see these organisations clamped down on, and an attempt made to exert undue influence on them through funding arrangements and other things, but I think civil society will speak out and not have that.
	We should be speaking out to enhance the people’s voice and to balance out the influence of money, power and privilege, which this Bill does nothing to counter. It is truly a rotten, ill-thought-out and cynical piece of legislation, and I will be voting wholeheartedly against its Second Reading.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Front-Bench wind-ups will begin at 6.40 pm, so we have 16 minutes remaining before then, and four hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Hon. Members are very capable of doing the arithmetic for themselves.

Michael Meacher: This has been a sleaze-ridden Government, as we all know. There have been at least eight well-reported
	lobbyist scandals in the past three years and one thing links them all—none of them will be covered by this Bill, including the enormous scandal over Lynton Crosby. The Bill is ridiculously narrow—it is estimated to cover only 1% of ministerial meetings—and that ensures that more than 80% of the activity of the lobbying industry will not be regulated and will not have to register.
	The Bill actually provides less transparency than there is now. It sets up a new register with much lower standards of practice than there are even under the voluntary register—for example, it contains no code of conduct. Loopholes mean that lobbyists will still keep their client lists secret. Lobbyists will not have to register if they have a business that, it can be argued, is mainly a non-lobbying business—that will give lawyers a field day. The Bill will not require consultant lobbyists to declare how much they spent on their lobbying activities. That is a crucial omission, but the biggest omission is the lack of a code of conduct backed by sanctions, which means that the whole exercise is spineless, as there will be no penalties for bad practice.
	As we know, part 2 outrageously curtails the ability of charities and other non-party groups to campaign on political issues in the 12 months before a general election. The Bill cuts by almost two thirds the amount that third-party groups can spend during that period. As has frequently been mentioned, there is great uncertainty about what the Bill means by “for political purposes”. The uncertainty about how exactly that will be operated is bound to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
	The Bill also contains anti-trade union provisions. Unions with more than 10,000 members are to be required to submit to the certification officer an annual membership audit certificate, in addition to the current duty to submit an annual return. The certification officer will have the power to require the production of relevant documents, including membership records and even private correspondence. What is the rationale for these draconian provisions? No evidence is put forward in the discussion paper to demonstrate that communications are not reaching union members or that there are any shortcomings in the trade unions’ duty to maintain a register of members. Not a single objection has been raised to the certification officer in the past two years on these grounds. Lobbyists are being let off the hook almost entirely by the Bill, so why are trade unions gratuitously and wantonly being screwed down to tighten a system that is already working perfectly satisfactorily, without a shred of evidence being provided to suggest otherwise? [Laughter.] There has not been a single objection in the past two years to the certification officer; the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) ought to consult the facts.
	Surely it is obvious that the real motive behind this part of the Bill is that the Government are eager to help employers to mount injunction proceedings when union members have voted for industrial action, seizing on minor, if not miniscule, details which the Court of Appeal had previously regarded as de minimis or accidental. That whole process of inserting minor, minute, technical, bureaucratic obstacles and hurdles in the path of unions that are carrying out their perfectly legitimate and proper functions is really behind part 3.
	Even by the standards of this Government, this Bill is a nasty little Bill. It is full of vicious partisanship and it will be a stain on the statute book of this country if it is
	allowed to pass. Like many hon. Members, I strongly believe that what is needed is for the Leader of the House to have the courage to withdraw this Bill, in the light of the fact that there is almost no support for it across the House, and to start the process again via consultation and negotiation in the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.

John Mann: I have some questions for the Minister to answer, if he will. Under the Bill, will paid transport provided by the South Cambridgeshire Conservative association for people to go to the London mayoral election be covered as third-party expenditure? Will the Tatton patrons’ club, as an independent body, be required to declare those who have contributed to its expenditure and where that expenditure has gone? Will that also apply to other patrons’ clubs of other Conservative associations across the country? When money from Tatton, Witney, Surrey Heath and many other patrons’ associations goes via constituency association accounts to other third parties—in other words, to other Tory associations—none of that is now specifically declared. Will the Bill require both sides to declare such activity?
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, made a point about the role of MPs as lobbyists. I eventually but successfully took 43 different firms of solicitors through the Law Society for misconduct, but I named a number of them publicly in advance without having had constituents come to me. I suspected that I had constituents who had been wrongly charged by them, but I did not have a mandate from a specific individual constituent. Would that action categorically have been permissible under the Bill? If there is a legal challenge in a comparable situation—that case involved firms of solicitors and there were many that might have done that at the time—will there be indemnity for Parliament and for Members of Parliament? I hope that the Minister who replies will give precise answers to those questions, because I think the House deserves to know.
	On the general points, there is nothing in the Bill about the imbalance in party funding. The Conservative party wasted £250,000 trying to get rid of me, which had no impact whatsoever. Nevertheless, the unfairness in the democratic system remains. Do the Liberal Democrats intend to introduce an amendment on that point, so that we can support it if the Bill proceeds to its next stage?
	On cash for access, we have seen MPs declaring that they are like taxis and we have also seen the recent scandals. Do the Liberal Democrats intend to introduce specific additional proposals to bring such activity into the scope of the Bill? It is wholly missing at the moment. As other Members have demonstrated, bodies such as BSkyB are excluded. Do the Liberal Democrats intend to introduce a specific clause that would bring the major lobbyists under the remit of the Bill, should it be passed today? Or is this a flawed attempt at gerrymandering, a half-cocked Bill that does not give anything to anyone other than confusion?
	Finally, let me answer one point for my colleagues on the Opposition side of the House who wanted information about why the Bill might be being introduced. There are
	figures for the membership of the Conservative party, so let me give a couple of examples. In South Cambridgeshire, membership has gone down by 21 and they are down to just 13 friends this year. In Tatton, membership has gone down by 43 and in Witney, it has gone down by more than 100. Surrey Heath has lost 350 members—a third of its membership—in the past three years. That might show the crisis in the Conservative party and might be why we have this attempt at gerrymandering today.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I did not expect when I was elected in May this year that one of my earlier contributions to the House would be to debate a Bill in this manner, mainly because I was of the impression that the Bill would be preceded by pre-legislative scrutiny. However, I am speaking here today because more concerns have been conveyed to me about part 2 than about any other issue in my short time as a Member. My constituents in South Shields recognise the real danger that part 2 poses to the democratic process. It excludes the voices of small campaign groups up and down the country. It will silence some of the most effective contributors to our national debate. It is clear in the Bill that the Government propose to outlaw charity campaigning and to restrict the activities of the organisations that might hold them to account.
	I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) about clause 26, which defines “controlled expenditure” as any spending incurred “for election purposes”. According to the explanatory notes,
	“the definition of ‘for election purposes’ does not rely solely on the intent of the third party; the effect of the expenditure must also be considered.”
	Put simply, any activity that might support any party’s position could apply, even if the activity made no reference to any election or political party. This is very worrying, as it would effectively silence policy experts and civil society organisations in important policy debates.
	How valuable can a public discussion of, for example, the bedroom tax be without the impact of campaigning organisations that dedicate their time and resources to studying the problem? How informed can a debate be if the experts who travel the country to talk to our constituents and conduct research are not allowed to participate? Politics goes beyond what happens here in Westminster, and political parties should not be the only voice that voters hear.
	I also have serious concerns about the impact that the Bill will have on campaigning groups. Clause 27 will halve the level of spending at which third-party groups will have to register as a recognised third party. Therefore, all manner of smaller organisations with a local or regional focus will now have to comply with a new and complex set of regulations, the costs of which are unclear.
	In my constituency, where Government cuts have already led to increasing homelessness and food poverty, those local charities have stepped in to fill the gap. Those organisations do not take a party political stance; their concern is for the welfare of their citizens, yet if they chose to speak about the growing crisis in constituencies
	such as mine, they would be subject to regulations that would divert valuable resources from their work on the ground.
	I find it ironic that the Government want to introduce laws that make it more difficult for local campaigners and community groups to have their voices heard. It is shameful to do that under the guise of tackling the worst abuses of lobbying, while not actually doing so. These proposals are unacceptable in a country that prides itself on vibrant and democratic debate. I hope that the Government have listened to my hon. Friends’ concerns today and will commit to fixing the Bill.

Sheila Gilmore: In the very short time left to me, I want to say two things. First, it is significant that the number of Opposition speakers far exceeded that of Government speakers. I therefore suspect that their heart is not really in it if Government Front Benchers could not roust out enough speakers to speak on the Bill.
	Secondly, there has been plenty of time to get part 1 absolutely right. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was unequivocal in its criticism of the original consultation paper. Unusually, one of the recommendations was to withdraw the whole thing and start all over again, because it was so bad. Having sat through the evidence that we took at that time, it was clear to me that no one on any side of the debate on lobbying was satisfied. The people who wanted more regulation thought that the proposal was not good enough; the people who perhaps did not want regulation also thought that it was very bad.
	For a whole year, there was no proper response from the Government. Normally, the Government respond to Select Committees with a detailed report that comments on and argues their position. There was none of that. The issue was kicked into the long grass. A lot of people outside the House noticed that there was nothing on lobbying in the Queen’s Speech. Then, all of a sudden, in a panic, the Bill comes forward. It is not a good Bill. We should not go ahead with it, but we need to do something about lobbying.

Jon Trickett: Thanks to the wonders of the internet, we already know what The Daily Telegraph thinks about today’s debate. It describes grisly scenes, referring to the contributions of Members on the Government Benches in today’s debate. It has been a particularly interesting debate and I hope the Government have listened very carefully to it—they have not listened to anyone else. They should at least listen to their own Back Benchers, and I will come to that in a moment.
	The Government have achieved something remarkable —they have a Bill which is so dreadful that it has united the lobbying industry and campaigners who are trying to bring more openness and transparency to the lobbying industry. They seem to have united the whole of the so-called big society, but it is unity in opposition to the Government’s proposals. They even managed to ensure that the LabourList and Conservative Home websites both came out against the Bill. Even the ultra-loyalist political blog Lib Dem Voice whispered its reservations about the Bill.
	It has been a fascinating debate. We heard 27 or 28 Back-Bench contributions. I cannot refer to them all but, needless to say, there were powerful contributions from all parts of the House. Eighteen or 19 Opposition Back Benchers made the most powerful speeches in which a wide variety of concerns were articulated—concerns about the voluntary sector, trade unions and the way in which lobbying will effectively be left unregulated if the Bill goes through. Voices were clearly heard from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which will face additional problems if the legislation is adopted.
	Significant contributions were made from the Back Benches by two Members who have been witnesses to lobbying in their own constituencies. One was the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who described behind-the-scenes influence and the expenditure of £12 million on attempts to reverse a planning consent. Let me tell the hon. Lady and the House that the Bill would not cover that as local government is wholly excluded from it, which seems to me to be remiss. We heard witness evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who described—whatever one’s view of the third runway at Heathrow—the most profound activities by employees, as I understand it, of BAA, who have passes to enter the Department for Transport. I have news for the House: those people would not be registered, as the register specifically excludes anybody who is a so-called in-house lobbyist.
	The most important contributions of all came from three Chairs of Select Committees, speaking for all members of their Committees. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that he was very concerned that there had been no pre-legislative scrutiny and that the Bill would clearly impact on human rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chair of the Standards Committee, warned the House that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 is likely to imperil the privileges of Members of the House which, we heard, have stood intact since the Bill of Rights in 1688. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was the only Member who made what sounded like a positive contribution in relation to the Bill, but he planted a small hand grenade in his speech: he said that he could not support any attack on the rights and privileges of hon. Members. Yet the legislation appears to do precisely that.
	Then we heard from the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who told us that the Committee was alarmed by the way the Bill has been introduced and pressed through in quite a reckless way. He assured the House that it was possible to reach a consensus on lobbying, even across the parties and across wider society, if only we took the time. A common theme running through all the contributions was this: why did the Government choose these particular time scales, which prevent pre-legislative scrutiny or witness statements being made to the Select Committee? I will return to that point in due course, because it is a disgrace.
	There were seven contributions from Government Back Benchers, and each of them in their own way damned with faint praise either the entire Bill or elements of it. Whether or not the Leader of the House listens to contributions from the Opposition side, he would be
	well advised to listen to the warning voices from Members behind him, particularly the story from St Albans. The hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) all warned that powerful vested interests lurk in our society, seeking to influence with the power of money the way we make decisions. They all warned that the legislation is simply inadequate in its present form and needs to be amended. Indeed, the Leader of the House himself said that he thought some amendments would probably have to be brought forward.
	The Bill simply fails to live up to the demands of the epoch through which we are living. We live in a time of great flux and of distrust in the ruling political and commercial elites. We live in a democratic century in which—rightly, in my view—the wider public long ago abandoned deferential attitudes to the people at the top. They want to know how decisions are taken and on whose behalf. A quiet revolution is taking place in our country, with the growth of active citizenship, which this House would be foolish to ignore. People are much more active in taking control of their lives, which partly explains the explosion in the number of campaigning organisations, not-for-profit groups and charities. It is not simply that the Government misunderstand the zeitgeist I am describing; in truth, they consistently make the wrong decisions because they are too tightly bound up with the interests of the most rich and powerful in our country, rather than the millions who work hard, play by the rules and struggle hard to get by.
	This legislation runs contrary to the spirit of the times in which we live. It permits lobbying by the rich and powerful to continue in an unregulated way and in the shadows, while at the same time it seeks to silence wider civic society. Big tobacco’s voice will still be heard in the seats of power, while the voices of cancer activists will not. The voice of arms manufacturers will be heard, but not that of the Royal British Legion. The voice of private medicine will be heard, but not the unions representing nurses and hospital cleaners. The tax avoidance industry will be heard, but not the tax justice campaign.
	The Bill is poorly drafted and needs to be radically amended. We have tabled our reasoned amendment, which I hope Members will vote for. If it is rejected by the House, we should vote against the Bill. We then need to make one further decision tonight, on the allocation of time. I hope that Members who have reservations listen carefully to the point I want to make. The Bill is being stampeded through, and there are strong reasons why more time needs to be given, so we will oppose the programme motion.
	Let me give six reasons. First, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny; secondly, witnesses have not been able to come before the House to react to the Bill; thirdly, the debate on part 1 next Monday will be curtailed because there will be a statement and other business; fourthly, as we have heard, the privileges of MPs will be affected; fifthly, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has told us that he believes that with time we could get a consensus; and sixthly and most importantly, we are witnessing a Bill that will
	change the British constitution in quite a fundamental way. There is no precedent for imposing an allocation of time motion under those circumstances. I very much hope that the House votes against this Bill.

Tom Brake: We have had a lengthy and impassioned debate, and I am grateful to all Members for their contributions. I am afraid that in the nine or so minutes that are left I will not be able to address all the points that have been made.
	First, let me remind Members of what this Bill is intended to achieve. It will push this Government’s culture of openness and transparency further by creating a statutory register of lobbyists, which the Government promised to do in the coalition programme. It will ensure that third parties that campaign at elections do so openly and within a fair regulatory framework. It will provide assurance that trade unions, as increasingly large and diverse membership organisations, know who their members are and can engage effectively with them. Those are all reasonable and valuable changes to our political system.
	Let me now address some comments, concerns and myths. The Bill is not about closing down charities’ ability to influence policy, as many Members claimed. I want to put on record the following so that it is clear to Labour Members, because I think there is some confusion. At present, a charity can undertake non-party political activity where its trustees can show that it supports the charity’s purposes and will be an effective use of the charity’s resources. Charity law prohibits charities from engaging in party politics, from party political campaigning, from supporting political candidates, or from undertaking political activity unrelated to the charity’s purpose. Charities, and indeed all other organisations, currently need to register as third parties only if they are spending money on campaigning to procure or promote the electoral success of a party or candidates. That test will remain under the Bill.
	As under the current provisions, charities can still give support to specific policies advocated by political parties if that would help to achieve their charitable purposes. Provided that charities continue to campaign as they currently do, maintaining their political neutrality and independence, expenditure incurred by them is unlikely to come within the definition of “controlled expenditure”. It does not now and it will not under our proposals. Of course, the Government have on a number of occasions expressed a willingness to work with charities to ensure that this is clear, and if more guidance is needed we will certainly ensure that it is in place.
	Before dealing with the myths, I want to touch on scientific theories. Today we have had a very significant scientific theory proven—that there are parallel universes. Labour Members are debating a Bill that will gag charities and destroy trade unions; we are building on the transparency already created by this Government in relation to Ministers reporting their meetings by establishing a register of consultant lobbyists, by reducing the risk of super-PACs, or political action committees, and by ensuring that trade unions have up-to-date membership lists.
	I have never heard as many myths as enthusiastically mouthed and endorsed with so little evidence as I have by Labour Members today. The shadow Leader of the House spoke for 44 minutes during which she made no reference to her own party’s policy. We had high-octane rhetoric that was very low in calorific value. She talked about furious displacement activity—reference, presumably, to what happened in the 13 years of Labour Government, when there was furious displacement activity on lobbying but no lobbying legislation. This Government are now acting on that. I wonder whether the hon. Lady feels any embarrassment about her wildly inaccurate allegations about what the Bill will or will not do. I am not sure whether she is doing that because she has not actually read the Bill or because she has misunderstood it. I will give her a couple of examples.
	There were a few interventions, one of which alleged that, under this Bill, Make Poverty History would not have happened. That is simply not true. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) will know, in 2005 that campaign did not register as a third party campaign, because it conducted its campaigning in the appropriate way as a charity. That will continue under this Bill. Another intervention was on whether the Bill would impact on the Scottish referendum. The shadow Leader of the House indicated that she believes it would have had an impact on Make Poverty History and that it will have an impact on the Scottish referendum, but neither of those cases is relevant to the Bill.

Fiona O'Donnell: If the Deputy Leader of the House is right that there is nothing for charities to fear from the Bill, why are they and the Electoral Commission all so concerned? Is it simply a case of the same old Government excuse of bad communication?

Tom Brake: Clearly, the Electoral Commission has expressed concerns and when the Bill goes through its Committee stage, I am absolutely certain that further clarity will be provided and the commission will be in a better position to provide the guidance it is required to give in order to ensure that charities understand the basis on which we are proceeding.

Bob Stewart: As I understand it, on 18 July the Leader of the House gave a timetable for this Bill and there was no objection to it.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Simon Hughes: Some of us are very pleased that the Government are introducing a Bill to deal with transparency of lobbying, which the previous Government never did. There has been an enormous amount of hype and overstatement, but perhaps some improvements could be and need to be made. May I have a clear undertaking that next week’s Committee stage will be open to amendments from across the House, including from relevant Select Committees with an interest in and knowledge of the subject?

Tom Brake: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, the Government have stated on a number of occasions that we are very keen to work with charities, non-governmental organisations and, indeed,
	Select Committees to ensure that their views are taken into account. That is very much our intention. We also want to ensure that the issue of parliamentarians and the role we play will be clarified very clearly in relation to this Bill.

Graham Allen: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

Tom Brake: I am very happy to give way to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

Graham Allen: A series of scandals led the Prime Minister to say that lobbying would be the next big crisis for the British political system and to the inclusion in the coalition agreement of a provision to regulate lobbying. Would this Bill attack any of those cases? Is it in any way relevant to the public concern about lobbying?

Tom Brake: As the hon. Gentleman will know—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard; let us hear him.

Tom Brake: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the MPs’ code of conduct covers some of the misdemeanours to which he refers. What we are doing in relation to lobbying is specifically about third party lobbyists.
	In conclusion, I reiterate that the Bill is about transparency, openness and fairness. I wanted to spend the limited time available allaying unfounded fears and addressing some of the myths that have been brandished across this Chamber in the past few hours. I wanted to be clear about what this Bill is intended to do and why the Government are doing it. It is not an attack on freedoms and democracy. The very opposite is true, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 243, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 309, Noes 247.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

Transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration Bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be completed in three days.
	(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	(4) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day  
			 Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3,   Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 25, new Clauses   relating to Part 1, new Schedules relating   to Part 1 The moment of interruption on the   first day 
			 Second day  
			 Clause 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 32,   Schedule 4, Clauses 33 to 35, new Clauses   relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating   to Part 2 The moment of interruption on the   second day 
			 Third day  
			 Part 3, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new   Schedules relating to Part 3, Part 4,   remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill The moment of interruption on the   third day 
		
	
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(5) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(6) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	Programming committees
	(8) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(9) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Syms.)
	The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 249.

Question accordingly agreed to.

TRANSPARENCY OF LOBBYING, NON-PARTY CAMPAIGNING AND TRADE UNION ADMINISTRATION BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of that Act,
	and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of
	money so provided.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

TRANSPARENCY OF LOBBYING, NON-PARTY CAMPAIGNING AND TRADE UNION ADMINISTRATION BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party
	Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the charging of fees under this Act in connection with a register of lobbyists, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Merger of the Gambling Commission and the National Lottery Commission) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

That the draft National Health Service (Licensing and Pricing) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 September, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Mr Evennett.)

BARONESS THATCHER'S LEGACY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

David Amess: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have agreed with the Minister to take a number of interventions on the basis that all the interventions are of a pleasant nature.
	Margaret Hilda Thatcher, born on 13 October 1925, died Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven on 8 April 2013, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 until 1990, Member of Parliament for Finchley from 1959 until 1992. I was in America visiting my oldest daughter, an aspiring actress, who lives in Hollywood when she knocked on my bedroom door and broke the news that Margaret Thatcher had died. As she is an actress, I did not initially believe what she had said. I could not get back in time for the very moving occasion when the House paid its own tributes, so I am unashamedly using this occasion to pay my tribute to Margaret Thatcher.
	I would like to refer Members to a speech I gave from this very place—from where I also made my maiden speech—on 7 December 1990. [Interruption.] As my good friend, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), says from a sedentary position, he was there when I made it. It was on a Friday, and I can do no better than quote the motion I initiated:
	“That this House notes the political developments in the United Kingdom since 1979; salutes the right honourable Member for Finchley for the part she has played in these developments; congratulates her upon her leadership of the country as Prime Minister for eleven and a half years and pays tribute to the many fine personal qualities that she brought to the performance of her duties, including, in particular, her integrity, steadfastness and courage; and looks forward to her continued contribution to the political life of this country.”—[Official Report, 7 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 564.]
	Of course, 20 years ago I was a little upset about the way in which Margaret was removed from office. I have calmed down now and am in a position to reflect on her life and the service she gave to her country.
	Only today, I was contacted by a councillor in Grantham, Councillor Davies; apparently—this is independent of the council—a statue to Margaret is definitely going to be erected there. I support that campaign and I hope that other hon. Members will do likewise in Grantham. I visited Grantham earlier this year, having never been before, and visited Margaret’s birthplace, which is now a health spa. The place is very humble; it certainly was a humble little shop that she used to run, but obviously Grantham has changed and the place is right opposite an Asda. If Margaret had been born in my constituency, we would be celebrating the fact that we had that great citizen as one of our local residents.
	I can think of no other British politician whose legacy is as lasting or far-reaching as Margaret’s. There can be no doubt that her philosophy has influenced every aspect of our lives today. I have been a member of the Conservative party for 45 years and I would never have joined it all those years ago were it not for Margaret. I was a resident in the London borough of Newham, which contains the constituency that produced the first ever Labour Member of Parliament, Keir Hardie. I was
	sick to death of people reminiscing about how the good old days were and how to get out of poverty. I wanted someone to inspire me with a philosophy that would get me out of poverty if I followed it, and for me that person was Margaret Thatcher.
	I missed our earlier debate here, but I did attend the ceremonial funeral. I thought that Margaret’s funeral was an absolute tribute to those who organised it and to this country. It was a privilege for me, and for so many of my colleagues who did not really know Margaret—they were not in the House when she was an MP—but were inspired in every way by the person she was.
	When Margaret became the leader in 1979, Britain was, as we all know, the sick man of Europe—we were the Greece of our times, seeking aid from the International Monetary Fund. The rot was really setting in. Interest rates were staggeringly high, at nearly 14%, the impact of which we appreciate if we recall what they are today. Inflation was in double digits and the top rate of tax was 83%. The power was in the hands of the unions, which gave us the winter of discontent. The three-day week was fresh in the memory of many, the dead could not be buried and rubbish was not being collected. I was there, living during those times; I have not read it in a book—I experienced it. Evidently, all was not well and something had to change.
	Baroness Thatcher did not, however, as many have claimed, break the post-war consensus; the post-war consensus had destroyed itself. It was the job of the then Mrs Thatcher to build a new Britain from the ashes. In the words of Lord Healey, of all people,
	“the time had come for a shift from government to the market, as far as economic policy was concerned, and ending the rule of the trade unions in deciding policy.”
	As I have said, I was privileged enough to have been elected, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), in 1983. Indeed, it was from this very spot that I made my maiden speech during proceedings on the Rates Bill in which I referred to the community charge. I believe that people called it the “poll tax” then, but I never referred to it as such.
	The House was absolutely packed and my speech followed that of Sir Ted Heath. Matthew Parris was on the Bench behind me and in your place, Mr Speaker, was the late Jack Weatherill. It was a fantastic occasion and I flatter myself that Margaret, as she sat on the Front Bench where my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is sitting now, listened to my support for the policy.
	Margaret Thatcher was absolutely inspirational. This is not a criticism, Mr Speaker, so please do not take offence, but I was thinking about the debate last week. In those days, the Chamber was full of giants. There were many experts and I was in awe of everyone, but 30 years on I am not in awe of anyone. I feel that this is now a Chamber of amateurs. I do not mean that in a nasty sense, but in a sense of the way we are now. One has to look to the other place for the real experts. We are all sent here, however articulate we are or not, as equals. As my voice was not heard last Thursday, I am very glad that my voice is being heard this evening in praise of Margaret Thatcher and her great legacy.
	Margaret Thatcher understood that people had the opportunity to be upwardly mobile. The right to buy gave to millions. In my then constituency of Basildon,
	we had 30,000 houses in public ownership and it gave many people the chance to own their property for the first time. Share ownership trebled during Margaret’s decade. Historically, long-term financial gains are made in housing and equity investment, unlike cash savings, which are often gobbled up by inflation. As people were interested in business and the economy as newly empowered shareowners and mortgage bearers, strikes were naturally much less appealing and the power of the unions was broken.
	Britain became a place to aspire to be and we were back in business. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford was then a local councillor in Basildon. People began to work together to build growth and it is no coincidence that in the ’80s many successful start-ups were born, including Waterstones, Dairy Crest, Bloomsbury, Sky and Virgin Atlantic. I recall that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I received an invitation from the chairman of British Airways. Lord King grasped the great opportunity he was offered; he was another inspirational leader.
	Of course, there is also the fundamental legacy of privatisation and economic policy. That policy was never reversed by successive Governments and has been copied all over the world. As late as 1977, the UK Government were still nationalising industry—aerospace and ship building—and Baroness Thatcher had to reverse the trend to resuscitate our country, which was then known as the sick man of Europe. More than 50 companies were put back into the hands of the people, including huge companies such as British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways. Not only was £50 billion raised for the Treasury, but competition was birthed and private shareholding grew. The consumer benefited, with gas prices falling by 25% in 1995 and telecom charges falling by 40%. The basic rate of tax fell from 33% in 1979 to 23% by the time Margaret left office. A strong pro-aspiration message was heard. Incredibly, 29 million working days were lost to strikes in 1979, whereas that figure was down to 2 million in 1990—an absolutely staggering decline.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is paying a wonderful tribute to the salvation of the nation. Does he agree that the figures he has just given for the reduction in the number of strikes from 29 million days lost to 2 million days are evidence that far from being divisive, that magnificent woman was responsible for restoring to the members of trade unions power that had been seized by their leaders to use for political purposes?

David Amess: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I paid tribute to him when he was appointed as Margaret’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. If only he had been her Parliamentary Private Secretary a little earlier, she would never have lost by four votes, but that is probably rewriting history. I absolutely agree about how Margaret’s legacy has been completely misrepresented.
	Contrary to left-wing opinion, Britain’s manufacturing production rose by 7.5% during Baroness Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister. In short, because of policies such as the right to buy, share ownership, privatisation,
	tax cuts and fewer days lost to strikes, Baroness Thatcher was able to bring Britain back from the brink and build a stronger economy.

Jim Shannon: I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and he knows what I am going to say. Baroness Thatcher’s legacy is threefold for us in Northern Ireland. First, although we Unionists were not happy with the Belfast agreement, she recognised that in her memoirs and said so accordingly, and we appreciate and understand that. Secondly, she took on the hunger strikers and beat them, and broke the back of the IRA at that time as well. Thirdly, she said:
	“Ulster is as British as Finchley.”
	That is the legacy that we have in Northern Ireland—the United Kingdom is more unified than ever before, and Northern Ireland is an integral part of that as never before—and that is a legacy well worth holding on to.

David Amess: I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend. I thank him for making that point. The only upsetting thing that I can recall was one moment during Prime Minister’s Question Time when there was a very unfortunate exchange about Northern Ireland between Enoch Powell and Margaret. But that is all history now, and it is very good that the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to Margaret’s legacy, as demonstrated in how Ireland is today.
	We should not forget anything that Margaret did for education. We know the unfortunate slogan, but how many people realise that Margaret created more comprehensive schools than any Education Secretary before or after her? Some Members might say, “We don’t support that,” but I am simply saying that, again, she was misrepresented. As Prime Minister, she offered schools a chance to come out of direct council control—a policy that is successful and popular to this day. She implemented a core curriculum, with a national standard that every school had to attain. She focused the curriculum on the essentials: maths, English and the sciences. The current Secretary of State for Education certainly applauds Margaret’s policies. Parents were given more power in how schools were administered. The Government designed policies around serving children and parents. Her policy victories in this area and more widely are no small feat, but let us look now at some of her tangible legacies, because at the moment, these are just words.
	Margaret Thatcher’s tangible legacies are found where I was born: the east end of London. She, through her dynamism, absolutely changed the docklands, which everyone enjoys now, and as we particularly did during last year’s Olympic games. The Daily Telegraph recently ran a story asking, “Will Canary Wharf be Baroness Thatcher’s greatest lasting legacy?” I know that it will be one of them. After designating the London docklands as an enterprise zone and offering tax breaks to local businesses, the then Prime Minister phoned Paul Reichmann to kick-start the project and persuaded him, as only she could, to take on the project. None of this could have happened without the lifting of exchange controls, which Baroness Thatcher did when she was first elected. Finance from abroad poured into London, and it became the most prominent city in the world. The regeneration of a huge area took place over the next few decades, and east London is now entirely unrecognisable from how it was
	my childhood. The docklands light railway was part of this legacy—a line that has assisted greatly in the quite stunning transformation of east London.
	Margaret Thatcher was always described as being anti-Europe. For 100 years, people had talked about the channel tunnel, but did it happen? Absolutely not, but Margaret Thatcher was responsible for driving that grand infrastructure project. I was then Michael Portillo’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, and we walked together down the channel tunnel as it was being bored—absolutely extraordinary—and although we take it for granted today, it was entirely due to Margaret Thatcher. I well remember when she met then President Mitterrand halfway down the tunnel.
	The previous project had been started in 1974 but it had to be abandoned because of the financial pressure that built up during the old, broken consensus. It took a more innovative approach and Mrs Thatcher asked private companies to tender for contracts in 1981. Just nine years later, the tunnel was built. It was part of her wider vision to build up Britain again and to revitalise our economy. Even the roots of Crossrail, which we can all see with our own eyes, can be found in Margaret’s time. As a former director of UK Contractors Group remembers, “she really pushed” Crossrail forward.
	This project also gives us an insight into the outward-looking nature of Mrs Thatcher’s leadership. It was a leadership which did not just look to Britain’s shores, but looked to change the world. My goodness, what an international leader Baroness Thatcher was! She showed a remarkable aptitude for the international political stage. Unlike some leaders who are no longer in the House, she was far from being a warmonger. She used to do everything she possibly could to avoid war and broker peace. It was only when the Falklands were invaded that she had to defend those isles. I struggle to put it better than Niall Ferguson, who wrote:
	“She was also mostly right about foreign policy. She was right to drive the forces of Argentina’s junta out of the Falklands and she was right to exhort a ‘wobbly’ George H. W. Bush to mete out the same treatment to Saddam Hussein’s forces in Kuwait. . . Like Ronald Reagan, she was quick to see the opportunity offered by”
	Mikhail Gorbachev’s
	“policies of glasnost and perestroika.”
	Mrs Thatcher was right about Europe, supporting the idea of free and fair trade while opposing the idea of a unified currency. Europe was still divided between east and west when she was first elected and, as we know, it was the Soviet press that nicknamed her the “Iron Lady”. She was strong when necessary, but she was conciliatory too. When I had the privilege to meet Mikhail Gorbachev when he came to this place, he looked at me and said, “David, you are young to be a Member of Parliament.” I said to him, “Well, you’re very young to be the Soviet leader.” But what a different type of leader he was to some who have followed him. When Margaret, Ronald and Mikhail were working together, my goodness, they made a huge difference. It was as a result of Margaret’s policy that the Berlin wall was eventually taken down.
	I was delighted to see that a council in Poland is trying to re-name a roundabout after Margaret, as roundabouts, as far as I am concerned, ensure that U-turns are redundant. Margaret is a hugely popular figure in Poland today. Her visit in 1988 is well remembered, establishing an alternative option for government in the
	minds of the Polish people. She had the presence to change a nation’s mind in one visit. I am not surprised that President Reagan was in awe of this remarkable woman. Not content with defeating socialism at home—although sadly, as a result of that, she gave us Tony Blair—together with President Reagan she vanquished the forces of communism across Europe, and there are many millions of people who rightly revere her name for bringing about freedom, democracy and commercial opportunity in eastern Europe.
	I suppose that one of the only things I will ever be remembered for is the 1992 election, although for me privately, when I won the first time in 1983, that was my greatest moment. I was under the cosh, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford will attest, as he ran the campaign team in his remarkable way. Every single journalist, not only local and national but international, descended on Basildon because they had been told by my enemies that Barclays bank tellers were to be brought in to do the count, it would be done within an hour, and they would see live on TV the first Conservative to lose their seat.
	Who came to my rescue? Margaret Thatcher. Just three days before the general election she arrived, as always, magnificently dressed in blue, and she was given a heroine’s welcome.
	I owe her everything, and that was particularly true in 1992.
	I will not dwell on what happened when she stood down as Prime Minister; I think it is best to draw a line under that. I will just say to my Conservative colleagues in the Chamber that we should never air our dirty linen in public. The greatest leader I have even known should certainly have been treated differently. Considering that I represented a highly marginal seat, I had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
	I want to allow time for my hon. Friend the Minister, whose father, Lord Hurd of Westwell, was of course Margaret’s Foreign Secretary at the end, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I can find no finer words than my own, in “Margaret Thatcher: A Tribute in Words and Pictures”, compiled by Iain Dale. Apparently, I said:
	“Margaret Thatcher was the consummate politician. She had those unique qualities of charisma, enormous courage and determination. She was blessed with first-class skills of leadership and undoubtedly not only changed this country but the world for the better.”
	Margaret Thatcher was a remarkable Prime Minister and an inspiration to any young women today, proving that women can do not only an equal job to us men, but—this is certainly the experience in my household—a far superior job. It is difficult to believe that the same Prime Minister who revitalised east London, the place where I grew up, successfully restructured the whole economy, dragging Britain away from the danger zone, leaving the physical marks of her success in, for instance, the Eurostar and the London docklands.
	Margaret loved this country and loved the place in which we now work. She believed in the supremacy of Parliament, as I do and as you certainly do, Mr Speaker—may the army of unelected decision-makers take note. She stood up for Britain in Europe and liberated the Falkland Islands from the Argentine invaders. She stood up for freedom and democracy against the tyranny of communism. She defeated socialism. She believed that Government should create the conditions under which
	every human being should be given the opportunity to make the most of their lives. She made this country and our world better places in which to live. She is certainly the greatest politician I have ever met, and I am just so blessed to have worked in Parliament under her leadership. The memory of this remarkable lady will last for ever.

Nick Hurd: I feel a lot better, having listened to that speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is a distinguished Member of the House, and I see that he is wearing his 1983 tie with pride, as he should. I am delighted that he has had the opportunity to place on the record, with the passion and conviction for which he is known, his great and persistent admiration for and loyalty to Margaret Thatcher. I am also delighted that he has been so well supported by colleagues and friends, not least his two fellow ’83ers, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett).
	It would be hard to disagree with a single syllable of what my hon. Friend said, particularly when he talked about what Margaret Thatcher did to reverse the tide of defeatism in this country and unleash aspiration. He spoke movingly about how she inspired him. Well, she inspired so many others. I know that he struggled to find a quote to encapsulate her greatness that matched the one he provided to Iain Dale, but I will humbly suggest some others. The leader of the free world, the current President of the United States, said:
	“She stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”
	He also said:
	“As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best.”
	Our own Prime Minister put it well when he said:
	“Her legacy will be the fact that she served her country so well and that she saved our country, and that she showed immense courage in doing so”.
	The Leader of the Opposition deserves credit for saying:
	“She will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation.”
	My hon. Friend was entirely right in talking about her legacy. We are all painfully aware as politicians that very few of us who pass through this place leave any traces that stand the test of time. His central point was
	that the legacy she leaves is as lasting and far-reaching as anyone’s, and I totally agree. I think that the only point of comparison is with Winston Churchill.
	Like my hon. Friend, I was very proud to be at St Paul’s with other colleagues to represent our constituents. I was there with my father, who, as my hon. Friend kindly mentioned, served Margaret Thatcher for such a long time. It did feel like the passing of an era. Much has been said, and was said there, about her strength and resolve. Personally, I was very pleased that in all the tributes so much was said about her personal kindness and courtesy, alongside the Boadicea-style tributes. It was hard not to be moved by the concern that she showed for the families of British soldiers, not least those who died in the Falklands. My father still speaks of his admiration for the way in which she handled herself in the incredibly difficult situation after the Hillsborough tragedy, walking round the hospital with him and talking to families as they stood round the bedsides of young lads from Liverpool, many of whom were to go on to die. He said that she was absolutely magnificent. In a situation that he found personally very awkward, she did not find it so; she knew exactly what to do.
	I was pleased that in his admirable address the Bishop of London nailed a few of the myths, not least one that I feel very strongly about, which is the myth around the misquotation of
	“there’s no such thing as society.”
	Of course, she later went on say: “My meaning” was
	“clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition”.
	What she meant to say, and did say,
	“was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.”
	I am proud to be part of a Government who are trying to reassert the value of social responsibility about which she felt so strongly, alongside everything else that we are doing. I see those as very Conservative actions and values to get this country back to living within its means, making work pay, and supporting the wealth creators and job creators. I sincerely hope that one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen—I agree with my hon. Friend’s description—would approve.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.